Oklahoma and Sharia

[Hayabusa Rider]

Baptist law? Buddhists maybe? Specifically and with examples? You are correct in that there shouldn't be alternative laws but seriously this is the only religion that gets pushed. I would accept broader language but I'll take this since Sharia is what's being pushed.

Criminal sentencing is set by legislature because they drafted the legislation to make the act criminal. Alternatively, a court could theoretically find a punishment set by legislature to be excessive, cruel, and/or unusual punishment and strike it from law.

If judges are telling the legislature it must fund certain programs, there's probably legal mandate to do so. For example, in California, there's a legal mandate that K-12 funding must make up a minimum level of spending based on a set of tests. If the CA legislatures says, "Screw you!" then they can be taken to court for now following law and can be forced to do so.

As for striking down regs and laws, that's one of the reasons why they exist.

And so as you illustrate Separation is not complete. What if a court wanted to follow Soviet law? It could certainly be kept from doing so.

 

[her209]

And so as you illustrate Separation is not complete. What if a court wanted to follow Soviet law? It could certainly be kept from doing so.

Then the court's decision is appealed and overturned, i.e., there's already a mechanism to rectify bad rulings.

 

[Infohawk]

But what about other religions' versions of Sharia?! Oh wait there aren't any. Again people want to act like all religions are the same. They're not. Islam is a more systematic religion that covers more aspects of life which is probably why so many countries under its sway are so primitive. Islam is fundamentally not compatible with western society. I don't have a problem with this law even if it's probably not that necessary at this point.

 

[werepossum]

But what about other religions' versions of Sharia?! Oh wait there aren't any. Again people want to act like all religions are the same. They're not. Islam is a more systematic religion that covers more aspects of life which is probably why so many countries under its sway are so primitive. Islam is fundamentally not compatible with western society. I don't have a problem with this law even if it's probably not that necessary at this point.

I certainly agree that Islam is not compatible with Western civilization to the extent that Islam is an entire system of governance, which is why I so oppose Sharia law creeping into our society in even the smallest ways. We should all realize though that this is (at least currently) limited only to arbitration courts, NOT to criminal courts. There is admittedly some overlap, as Muslims will be pressured to accept Sharia court arbitration rather than press charges criminally.

The polygamy thing is a distraction. Only a tiny fraction of those professing to be Mormons practice or support polygamy, it is banned by the Mormon Church proper. (Mormons tend to be some of the nicest people you'd ever meet and statistically never explode.) Likewise only a tiny fraction of Muslims practice or support polygamy. In our society polygamy is likely to be much more heavily hippies and the free love crowd. Unless they start pushing Stoner Court arbitration, this isn't likely to be an issue.

 

[theeedude]

I don't think it's going to be constitutional if it singles out Sharia, equal protection.

 

[rudder]

In my opinion, Islam (or any other religion) has NO PLACE defining any aspect of US law. Serious what the fuck from this article...

The serious WTF is from the Clinton appointed judge blocking Oklahoma from banning these courts. Just a temporary injuction... but this ruling is wrong on all levels...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/0...d-critics-say-attorney-general-failed-respond

 

[dmcowen674]

What's really cool is by trying to outlaw it, the Oklahoma right wing nuts will be the first to be under Sharia.

 

[nonlnear]

what if you had a contract and the conflict of laws resolved to using the substantive law of, say, japan. you can't do that in oklahoma if this thing passes.

You still can. You would just have to go to Japan to get a ruling on Japanese law. The enforceability of any claims that might result would then be subject to the treaties established between the US and Japan.

 

[routan]

Does anyone else realize that the referendum also addressed not using "International Law" in any rulings?

 

[routan]

may I also ask members supporting this ban to please inform me of the reasons behind opposing Sharia Law? I may be able to address some of their concerns. If you could list out what you dislike about Sharia Law in points, I would be grateful.

 

[cganesh75]

may I also ask members supporting this ban to please inform me of the reasons behind opposing Sharia Law? I may be able to address some of their concerns. If you could list out what you dislike about Sharia Law in points, I would be grateful.

one word -- islamophobia

 

[spacejamz]

may I also ask members supporting this ban to please inform me of the reasons behind opposing Sharia Law? I may be able to address some of their concerns. If you could list out what you dislike about Sharia Law in points, I would be grateful.

why? so you can dodge all of the questions regarding these exact same issues in your failed thread from a couple of months ago? nothing got accomplished there and nothing will probably get accomplished here.

 

[Scotteq]

may I also ask members supporting this ban to please inform me of the reasons behind opposing Sharia Law? I may be able to address some of their concerns. If you could list out what you dislike about Sharia Law in points, I would be grateful.

Point: Sharia Law is not United States Law, and therefore should have no consideration in US courts.

Point: International Law is not United States Law, and therefore should have no consideration in US courts.

Point: Halakh is not United States Law, and therefore should have no consideration in US courts.

Point: Holland's Laws are not United States Law, and therefore should have no consideration in US courts.


...I could continue to name however many systems from however many cultures and nations. But that would merely be belaboring the obvious.

Summary: Only United States Law should be considered in United States Courts.

Anecdotal supporting information: When I lived in Japan, I was subject to Japanese law and if I had gotten into trouble then I would have also been subject to the Japanese court system. This is the same as going anywhere else in the world: You are subject to the Jurisdiction of the Country/State you are physically present in.

This is Common Sense, Correct?


The referendum voted on which started this thread was written specifically to bar Sharia and International law from consideration in the Courts of the State of Oklahoma. On the face of it, this should be common sense and a matter of course. But there is recent case law where Sharia was used as the basis for Judgment, and recent statements from some few politicians indicating that International Laws should also serve as the basis for US Court proceedings. This referendum was written specifically to disallow that in the State of Oklahoma.


It's my opinion the referendum is poorly written enough that it's not likely to pass a review of it's Constitutionality - (I believe it's already being challenged). Not necessarily because the sentiment is wrong (Only US Laws in US Courts), but because the language specifically singles out Sharia which, being Religiously based, is protected from discriminatory laws/actions. A more proper writing would be a blanket "Only US Federal and Applicable US State Laws May Be Considered...", rather than specifically naming Sharia.

 

[routan]

why? so you can dodge all of the questions regarding these exact same issues in your failed thread from a couple of months ago? nothing got accomplished there and nothing will probably get accomplished here.

hi, if you dont want to respond to my request, then please be my guest and dont. thanks for replying to my post.

 

[JS80]

one word -- islamophobia

What's the word for blind defense of islam not knowing they want to kill you after they use your toolishness? Blind affinity to Islam.

 

[routan]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30737076&postcount=63

Hi. While you make a number of points, none specifically relate to the Sharia, and my request was born out of informing other members about any misconception they may have, and not supporting/being against the implementation of it.

However, let me address quickly one point, where you seemingly confuse International Law with laws of another sovereign nation. This is wholly incorrect. Please read a bit about International Law.

As to the effects of this referendum, would not Oklahoma as a state be at odds with the Federal Government which may(?) be a signatory to International Law (i honestly dont know if the USA is). What would happen in events where things like extradition may be involved? An international criminal can take safe haven in Oklahoma?

 

[routan]

What's the word for blind defense of islam not knowing they want to kill you after they use your toolishness? Blind affinity to Islam.

hi. do you think my sole purpose as a follower of Islam is to kill you?

 

[cganesh75]

What's the word for blind defense of islam not knowing they want to kill you after they use your toolishness? Blind affinity to Islam.

is there any difference in this regard between islam, chritianity, hinduism or anything? there are radical groups in every religion.

you tell me.. are all muslims terrorists?

 

[spacejamz]

hi, if you dont want to respond to my request, then please be my guest and dont. thanks for replying to my post.

I would like to avoid a repeat of 1K post thread where nothing got accomplished. You never answered these questions then and I have a feeling you are not going to answer them now...

Originally Posted by PJABBER View Post
Simple questions for routan, as he can't answer the complicated ones -

Do you believe sharia should be the law of the land in America?

Do you believe that sharia compliance should be a factor in how life is lived in America? For Muslims? For non-Muslims?

Do you believe a parallel system of sharia law should exist in the United States, side by side with American constitutional law?

Do you live a life bound by sharia, above and beyond the laws of the United States?

Do you believe that faithful Muslims have a right, or an obligation, to live lives bound by sharia law above or instead of American constitutional law?

Do you advocate in your community that this "right" to live a sharia compliant life is an actual obligation if you are Muslim?

How do you treat someone who only accepts part of sharia and speaks out that the part that they reject is anti-American?

How do you treat someone who is Muslim but rejects sharia law entirely for other rules and standards for a good life?

Should a faithful Muslim fall in love and marry a polytheist, will you accept the spouse as an equal in your Muslim community?

Will you welcome a homosexual couple, married under the liberalized laws of New York or the US, as Muslims, with all the benefits and privileges of being Muslims, in your mosque?

If America rejects sharia, formally and officially, wherever and whenever it rises, will you be loyal to America or to Islam?

 

[boomerang]

you tell me.. are all muslims terrorists?

I'll answer. Of course not.

But which one's are? I'd really like an answer to this. I want to know how I can tell.

 

[spacejamz]

hi. do you think my sole purpose as a follower of Islam is to kill you?

So how do we tell the difference between the ones who do want to kill us versus the ones who don't? Especially the ones who have blended in here hiding under the many freedoms this great country offers.

 

[spacejamz]

is there any difference in this regard between islam, chritianity, hinduism or anything? there are radical groups in every religion.

you tell me.. are all muslims terrorists?

How many of these radical groups have hijacked planes and crashed them into building here? How many have openly declared their hatred for us to see on international news outlets wanting our death and destruction?

 

[JS80]

is there any difference in this regard between islam, chritianity, hinduism or anything? there are radical groups in every religion.

you tell me.. are all muslims terrorists?

If a muslim goes to a mosque and prays and supports the Imam that tells certain tools to commit terrorist acts, is that muslim a terrorist? If that muslim eventually learns of this, yet keeps his mouth shut and continues his life status quo, whether its because he morally supports the jihadi cause but is too pussy to do it himself, or is morally opposed, but too pussy to do anything against it, what is he?

 

[JS80]

So how do we tell the difference between the ones who do want to kill us versus the ones who don't? Especially the ones who have blended in here hiding under the many freedoms this great country offers.

And how do you balance that risk without giving up the rights and freedom that makes your society free?

 

[Scotteq]

Hi. While you make a number of points, none specifically relate to the Sharia, and my request was born out of informing other members about any misconception they may have, and not supporting/being against the implementation of it.

However, let me address quickly one point, where you seemingly confuse International Law with laws of another sovereign nation. This is wholly incorrect. Please read a bit about International Law.

As to the effects of this referendum, would not Oklahoma as a state be at odds with the Federal Government which may(?) be a signatory to International Law (i honestly dont know if the USA is). What would happen in events where things like extradition may be involved? An international criminal can take safe haven in Oklahoma?

The United States is a Signatory to International Law, Yes. But - like all nations - within it's borders the law of the land is United States law. Regarding Extradition and other duties of said treaty: We honor the treaty we signed, and always have. If/when we receive a request for extradition though the appropriate embassy, then we act upon it.

Here are the procedures: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/15mcrm.htm

Regarding the supposed misconception of International Law: That *IS* the problem here: There are politicians in the United States who are saying that International Law should be considered/used in United States courts.


What this referendum was (poorly) written to combat is the notion that other entitys' laws should be the basis for Judgment in Oklahoma's Courts. It is not a referendum rejecting International/Sharia law in such places where those laws are applicable. For example: An Oklahoma citizen residing in places ruled by Sharia law, such as Iran, Sudan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Egypt, etc... is subject to those laws while living there. If (S)He gets in trouble and arrested in Egypt, then Egyptian authorities have jurisdiction and that individual gets tried in Egypt under Egyptian law. This is common sense, right?

Well: What has happened here is an Immigrant successfully used a defense in a United States court that his actions were legal under Sharia when he broke United States Law. ..and the court bought the story (overturned on appeal). So he broke the law in the United States, and then claimed he wasn't subject because he followed Sharia.


Another example: A California Resident gets caught in Bahrain with Marijuana. This California resident has a prescription, so this would be legal in California. But he is NOT in California, is he? Do we expect the Bahraini Police to let him go because pot is legal in California? The answer is NO: Drugs are punishable by DEATH in Bahrain, and therefore this US Citizen may be executed in Bahrain under Bahraini law. The US Embassy can ask the Bahraini courts nicely to let him go, or cut a deal like a certain amount of prison time or pay whatever fine and never come back. But if the Bahraini courts decide to kill our marijuana posessing friend, then he is going to die. And it's perfectly legal for them to do that because that is the law in their country.


If Bahrain had a situation like the one under discussion here: Then because Pot is legal in California with a prescription, then our California resident would be allowed to say "I have a Prescription" in a Bahraini court, and the Bahrainis would have to let him go.


That is absolutely ridiculous.