Oklahoma is poised to become the first state in the nation to ban state judges from relying on Islamic law known as Sharia when deciding cases.
A Sharia law official whips a man convicted of gambling with a rattan cane during a public caning in...
(Heri Juanda/AP Photo)
The ban is a cornerstone of a "Save our State" amendment to the Oklahoma constitution that was recently approved by the Legislature.
The amendment -- which also would forbid judges from using international laws as a basis for decisions -- will now be put before Oklahoma's voters in November. Approval is expected.
Oklahoma has few Muslims - only 30,000 out of a population of 3.7 million. The prospect of sharia being applied there seems remote. But a chief architect of the measure, Republican State Rep. Rex Duncan, calls the proposed ban a necessary "preemptive strike" against Islamic law coming to the state.
"I see this in the future somewhere in America," Duncan, who chairs the state House Judiciary Committee, told ABC News. "It's not an imminent threat in Oklahoma yet, but it's a storm on the horizon in other states."
Sharia - which means "path" in Arabic - governs many aspects of Muslim life and influences the legal code in a majority of Muslim countries.
There are many interpretations of what Sharia means, but in some countries strict interpretations "are used to justify cruel punishments such an amputation and stoning as well as unequal treatment of women in inheritance, dress and independence," according to the Council on Foreign Relations.
Sharia has gained a toehold in some western countries, notably Great Britain, where five sharia courts have been established to settle certain disputes among Muslims, with the government's blessing.
The proposed Oklahoma amendment is aimed, in part, at "cases of first impression," legal disputes in which there is no law or precedent to resolve the matter at hand.
In such cases, judges might look to laws or rulings in other jurisdictions for guidance. The proposed amendment would block judges in Oklahoma courts from drawing on sharia, or the laws of other nations, in such decisions.
The amendment also is a response to what some conservatives see as a pernicious trend -- cases of liberal judges mostly notably Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, using foreign laws to shape their opinions in U.S. cases.
"It should not matter what France might do, what Great Britain might do, or what the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia might do," Duncan said. "Court decisions ought to be based on federal law, or state law."
all I have to say is good for Oklahoma to not put up with there bullshit. this is the United States not the giant sand box they came from.
NO western country that i am aware of, and i live in Great Britain, has any real form of Sharia law in place. Therefore i can't really understand your post. Sharia law is essentially law taken straight for the Koran and means essentially capital punishment for a great deal of crimes including adultery and i don't know of any civilised state in the world that has this as its law.
No judges in the US, or really anywhere else in North America or Europe are allowed to use Sharia law to make their rulings. This issue is being conflated with Sharia arbitration, which is permitted in some places and is not the same thing at all.
I think that the specific mention of Sharia is there to mask the true intent of this part of the bill, which is to block the use of international law as justification for an opinion, potentially making treaties signed by the US inapplicable in Oklahoma.
At 6/16/10 08:51 AM, Elfer wrote: No judges in the US, or really anywhere else in North America or Europe are allowed to use Sharia law to make their rulings. This issue is being conflated with Sharia arbitration, which is permitted in some places and is not the same thing at all.
I think that the specific mention of Sharia is there to mask the true intent of this part of the bill, which is to block the use of international law as justification for an opinion, potentially making treaties signed by the US inapplicable in Oklahoma.
If this was going to make treaty's not appeal I figure the supreme court would strike it down, other than that it seems like a fine law to me.
Personally I think the international law clause isn't going to do much good, because international law is usually only applied to cases where there's a scarcity of domestic case law. If the judge wants to use international law in a decision, they can just use the same arguments that were used to justify the international ruling, without a direct reference to international law. This bill is only forcing a workaround, not actually stopping international influence on US law.
At 6/16/10 08:51 AM, Elfer wrote:
I think that the specific mention of Sharia is there to mask the true intent of this part of the bill, which is to block the use of international law as justification for an opinion, potentially making treaties signed by the US inapplicable in Oklahoma.
It's in Ok, so it obviously has some sort of evil, hidden, intention.
At 6/16/10 11:34 AM, Memorize wrote:
It's in Ok, so it obviously has some sort of evil, hidden, intention.
Well, it's not going to actually DO anything in terms of preventing judges from using Sharia law in decisions, since you can't base a valid legal ruling on laws that haven't been passed in your jurisdiction. The purpose of the Sharia clause is therefore either to distract from another clause (which is done all the time in bills), or purely political posturing. It's definitely not pragmatic.
At 6/16/10 07:31 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: all I have to say is good for Oklahoma to not put up with there bullshit. this is the United States not the giant sand box they came from.
Firstly, fuck you and the obvious racism that prompted this thread.
Secondly this is much ado about nothing. I don't think there's any rash of Sharia-using judges in Oklahoma or anywhere else in the US, so this clause is effectively nothing but political hot air. I agree with Elfer, though... it's likely only there to distract from another part of the bill (if it has any point at all).
At 6/16/10 11:34 AM, Memorize wrote: It's in Ok, so it obviously has some sort of evil, hidden, intention.
Do you know something about Oklahoma that I don't? o_o
Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
At 6/16/10 12:27 PM, Ravariel wrote: Firstly, fuck you and the obvious racism that prompted this thread.
Thank you, you beat me to it. It's just pathetic when the melting pot of the globe still tries to keep cultures separate because they don't want to or can't understand them.
Fireworks Collab!!!!!! I need a programmer, PM me for details!!!!!
*Explodes violently*
*Listens to splatter*
At 6/16/10 08:35 AM, Nitr0gen wrote: NO western country that i am aware of, and i live in Great Britain, has any real form of Sharia law in place. Therefore i can't really understand your post. Sharia law is essentially law taken straight for the Koran and means essentially capital punishment for a great deal of crimes including adultery and i don't know of any civilised state in the world that has this as its law.
Not exactly, it influences the decision especially when a crime was committed between two Muslims who seek Sharia law.
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
At 6/16/10 12:45 PM, Warforger wrote: Not exactly, it influences the decision especially when a crime was committed between two Muslims who seek Sharia law.
You can't seek Sharia law on a criminal matter, only torts. There's a substantial difference.
"only 30,000 out of a population of 3.7 million"
It affects less than 1% of the population, yet it might be a "strike against Islamic law coming to the state."?
Don't these legislatures have anything better to do then prove they're paranoid and clearly prejudice?
New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams
As an Atheist I'm happy to see this happen.No religion should determine judicial process.
However in regards to your comment of "this is not the giant sand box they came from." I find it completely degrading,and arrogant.to label such a broad region from where magnificent civilizations came from.
At 6/16/10 08:35 AM, Nitr0gen wrote: NO western country that i am aware of, and i live in Great Britain, has any real form of Sharia law in place. Therefore i can't really understand your post. Sharia law is essentially law taken straight for the Koran and means essentially capital punishment for a great deal of crimes including adultery and i don't know of any civilised state in the world that has this as its law.
if you read the article and you would have read Sharia has gained a toehold in some western countries, notably Great Britain, where five sharia courts have been established to settle certain disputes among Muslims, with the government's blessing. It's true I know a few people who live in britain and keep tabs on this shit.
At 6/16/10 04:29 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: if you read the article and you would have read Sharia has gained a toehold in some western countries, notably Great Britain, where five sharia courts have been established to settle certain disputes among Muslims, with the government's blessing. It's true I know a few people who live in britain and keep tabs on this shit.
Sharia court officials are arbitrators, not judges. It's different.
When discussing legal issues, it's very important to know precisely what you're dealing with.
I hear a lot about Islam extremism in Middle East countries, but I really had no idea there were enough Muslims in this country to make an impact. I am glad that people are taking action against these terrible rituals and putting a true end to religious fundamentalism. Freedom of religion does not give you the right to oppress people.
You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock
I saw this and I wonder, are there really enough Muslims in Oklahoma for this to have any real impact?
At 6/16/10 01:51 PM, SouthAsian wrote: As an Atheist I'm happy to see this happen.No religion should determine judicial process.
However in regards to your comment of "this is not the giant sand box they came from." I find it completely degrading,and arrogant.to label such a broad region from where magnificent civilizations came from.
its been scientifically proven humans originated from africa there are fossils and genetic testing that proves it and the middle east was mostly Pagan before mohammed when on his conquest of spreading his "religion" around in the 6th century.
At 6/16/10 06:47 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:At 6/16/10 01:51 PM, SouthAsian wrote: As an Atheist I'm happy to see this happen.No religion should determine judicial process.its been scientifically proven humans originated from africa there are fossils and genetic testing that proves it and the middle east was mostly Pagan before mohammed when on his conquest of spreading his "religion" around in the 6th century.
However in regards to your comment of "this is not the giant sand box they came from." I find it completely degrading,and arrogant.to label such a broad region from where magnificent civilizations came from.
Wait what does humans coming from Africa have to do with anything?I'm clarifying how your insinuating that nothing good ever came out of the Middle East because in your words it was "just a sand box".Agriculture started there.lets go back to before Islam even existed.You had various Mesopotamian civlizations like the Babylonians and Assyrians flourishing there,contributing in the ways of mathematics,astronomy,science,law, and medicine.
But even though I'm not a Muslim I have to hand it to Muhammad. He was a very clever businessman and warrior, whose decisiveness and intelligence lead backwards Arab tribesman from the desert into transforming much of the known world from Spain to India) in as little as 100 years. To have an illiterate merchant ultimately give rise of empires like the Abbasids,fatimads, and Ummayads is an impressing feat.Also It's not accurate to say the Muslims slaughtered and burned down every city in their path either. They behaved very peacefully towards their conquered subjects.
They integrated Persian, Indian, and other non Muslim peoples into their society, and joined in the development of science, medicine, mathematics, ,furthered the intellectual cause by creating some of the first universities in Spain and Baghdad. Massive libraries that rivaled anything in Europe at the time, contained the preserved works of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Indians, Persians, and Chinese.
At 6/16/10 08:20 PM, SouthAsian wrote: Wait what does humans coming from Africa have to do with anything?I'm clarifying how your insinuating that nothing good ever came out of the Middle East because in your words it was "just a sand box".
sorry I had a extra part but I I type on a note pad program because I don't want to lose what im writing.
Agriculture started there.lets go back to before Islam even existed.You had various Mesopotamian civlizations like the Babylonians and Assyrians flourishing there,contributing in the ways of mathematics,astronomy,science,law, and medicine.
true they were then in the Muslim Golden age Muslims took the credit for it.
But even though I'm not a Muslim I have to hand it to Muhammad. He was a very clever businessman and warrior, whose decisiveness and intelligence lead backwards Arab tribesman from the desert into transforming much of the known world from Spain to India) in as little as 100 years. To have an illiterate merchant ultimately give rise of empires like the Abbasids,fatimads, and Ummayads is an impressing feat.Also It's not accurate to say the Muslims slaughtered and burned down every city in their path either. They behaved very peacefully towards their conquered subjects.
all you have to do is be charasmatic and use a few sweet words and you have people hooked but also the muslims didn't start rapidly expand until AFTER muhhomad was dead
They integrated Persian, Indian, and other non Muslim peoples into their society, and joined in the development of science, medicine, mathematics, ,furthered the intellectual cause by creating some of the first universities in Spain and Baghdad. Massive libraries that rivaled anything in Europe at the time, contained the preserved works of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Indians, Persians, and Chinese.
they intergrated what persia already brutally conquered.
At 6/16/10 08:46 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
sorry I had a extra part but I I type on a note pad program because I don't want to lose what im writing.
Nevermind then.
true they were then in the Muslim Golden age Muslims took the credit for it.
Not entirely true.Yes Muslims did preserve the works of ancient Empires they conquered, but at the same time they have a very broad and varied list of independent Muslim scholars of differing ethnic backrounds(Arab,Persian,Indian) who contributed new methods,rules,and knowledge systems to science,medicine,math,etc. to their societies throughout the Middle Ages.
all you have to do is be charasmatic and use a few sweet words and you have people hooked but also the muslims didn't start rapidly expand until AFTER muhhomad was dead
Easier said than done in 7th century Arabia.These people were fiercely adherents to their old pagan lifestyle and their tribal loyalties were something they held on to.They didnt just hand over themselves underneath the Islamic banner to an upstart.Muhammad proved himself to people around him on the battlefied and in his community.Thats how his reputation spread to all over Arabia.But yes 100 years after Muhammad had died,that's when Islam's full force was in motion.
they intergrated what persia already brutally conquered.
Again yes they did take what the people such as the Persians had to offer,and greatly expanded on those premises.
So they're banning Sharia law because a few places in Britain allow arbitrators to use it in cases where the only people who are affected by it are those who choose to adhere to it via their own religion?
How productive.
Hmm, I guess it might set a rule for if muslims ever want to implement something as a true Sharia in certain communities.
But I do figure that they can only implement a Sharia applying on all if they somehow manage to amass and through a bloody riot seize control of a western nation. But that's something I feel they will not be capable of any time soon.
So yes, this law is not something that is top priority in my books.
On a side note, yes the Muslim-Arab nation used to be a great nation of prosperity and progress (even within a religious setting) and eventually got smashed down by the ignorant Christians of Europe.
RubberJournal: READY DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO DESCRIBE IT!
Mathematics club: we have beer and exponentials.
Cartoon club: Cause Toons>> Charlie Sheen+Raptor
Nobody has mentioned that the Sharia courts are in fact used to punish muslim's... for so called 'crimes' like failing to attend the mosque prayer sessions. or for what 'they' (the courts islamic scholars) consider immodest dress or behaviour.
Basicly they will punish you for not practicing the religion 'THEY SAY' is correct.
And we're not talking about penance...no we're talking about a system where they will torture, maim, & even kill the member of the religious group who they feel 'deserve it' THat's not a court, that's a lynching mob !
Anytime a religion has to use punishment & force on its members, who in the opinion of the religions leaders have done something wrong... you know longer have a legitimate religion IMO...you have a cult.
Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More
This decree seems to be nothing more than a racist Oklahoma style truism statement.
There is no situation where a court should EVER use religious law legally, and no situation where a state court should be applying international law.
This whole decree seems just like an attempt for Oklahoma to show how stpuid and insular it is.
At 6/18/10 10:36 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Nobody has mentioned that the Sharia courts are in fact used to punish muslim's... for so called 'crimes' like failing to attend the mosque prayer sessions. or for what 'they' (the courts islamic scholars) consider immodest dress or behaviour.
Basicly they will punish you for not practicing the religion 'THEY SAY' is correct.
And we're not talking about penance...no we're talking about a system where they will torture, maim, & even kill the member of the religious group who they feel 'deserve it' THat's not a court, that's a lynching mob !
I doubt though this is what is happening in the so called shariah courts in Western nations as in the UK and Oklahoma. These courts likely serve for settling certain issues involving contracts, marriages, inheritance,...
They don't involve murder and other brutallity.
RubberJournal: READY DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO DESCRIBE IT!
Mathematics club: we have beer and exponentials.
Cartoon club: Cause Toons>> Charlie Sheen+Raptor
At 6/17/10 01:08 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: So they're banning Sharia law because a few places in Britain allow arbitrators to use it in cases where the only people who are affected by it are those who choose to adhere to it via their own religion?
How productive.
Which, notably, has not been banned by this bill.
At 6/20/10 07:36 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:At 6/18/10 10:36 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Nobody has mentioned that the Sharia courts are in fact used to punish muslim's... THat's not a court, that's a lynching mob !I doubt though this is what is happening in the so called shariah courts in Western nations as in the UK and Oklahoma. These courts likely serve for settling certain issues involving contracts, marriages, inheritance,...
They don't involve murder and other brutallity.
;;;
YET !
Give these assholes an inch & they demand that everyone & everything should conform.
I say fuck that.
THey don't like it here, go back to the hell hole they left & practice their 13th century religion there !
Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More
At 6/20/10 01:52 PM, morefngdbs wrote: ;;;
YET !
Give these assholes an inch & they demand that everyone & everything should conform.
In order for them to be legally killing and maiming people they should gather in masses, bomb shit and conquer our western nations and oppress us. Otherwise such murders can occur underground, but I don't think we should label this to be because we allowed Muslim courts to exist.
RubberJournal: READY DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO DESCRIBE IT!
Mathematics club: we have beer and exponentials.
Cartoon club: Cause Toons>> Charlie Sheen+Raptor
At 6/20/10 01:52 PM, morefngdbs wrote:At 6/20/10 07:36 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: They don't involve murder and other brutallity.;;;
YET !
Give these assholes an inch & they demand that everyone & everything should conform.
I say fuck that.
THey don't like it here, go back to the hell hole they left & practice their 13th century religion there !
See though, it's not legal to do that, since there's so much precedent built into the legal system that you can't really give jurisdiction over criminal cases to anyone else.
Even the current Sharia courts work within the country's legal system, in that you still need a proper contract authorizing the arbitration. To put the authority of existing western Sharia courts into perspective, via a similar agreement I could settle a case by cutting off a chicken's head and waiting to see what side of the room the body eventually collapses on.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
