On November 2, 70 percent of the citizens of Oklahoma voted for a ballot measure prohibiting judges from making rulings based on international law, including Sharia, only to be have their will blocked by a judge who issued a temporary restraining order. In Tennessee, citizens are suing their elected officials for overlooking signs of extremism with the Murfreesboro mosque they have approved. These two cases show that American citizens are stepping up to the plate to stop the spread of radical Islam.
Rep. Rex Duncan, the primary author of the Oklahoma ballot measure, called it a “pre-emptive strike” against the institution of Sharia law in his state. “Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law,” the measure reads. Its passing is causing some in the Muslim-American community to react with anger.
The executive-director of the Oklahoma branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muneer Awad, is suing the state. CAIR’s website argues that “the First Amendment directs all government bodies to ‘make no law respecting the establishment of religion.’” U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange temporarily blocked the measure on November 8 following the suit.
“This measure casts aside the principle of equality under the law and returns us to separate but unequal citizenship classes…they exploited the growing anti-Islam sentiment in American society to demonize Islam and marginalize Oklahoma’s Muslim community,” CAIR says.
Abigail Esman, author of Radical State: How Jihad is Winning Over Democracy in the West, laughed at CAIR’s argument in a response to FrontPage.
“Obviously, this is exactly the opposite of a law respecting the establishment of religion: it is a law that specifically keeps religion out of the rule of law – that is, it confirms the constitutional mandate of the courts to function as secular, civil bodies, not influenced by religious law or tradition,” she said.
I agree that it was unnecessary, since Sharia courts are unconstitutional (despite CAIR’s efforts to distort the meaning of the Constitution). But there are plenty of laws that simply confirm what the Constitution already says, making matters easier for the courts.
The American Islamic Forum on Democracy, a Muslim organization dedicated to fighting political Islam, agrees with Esman and has endorsed the ballot measure.
“By filing a lawsuit, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has wasted no time in proving once again that they are unable to stand behind public declarations that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and our one law system supersede and are preferable to a Sharia law system,” a AIFD’s press release on the matter stated.
The organization rejects any comparison between the Oklahoma measure and France’s banning of the wearing of niqabs and burkas. It does not, in any way whatsoever, prevent Muslims from practicing their faith or following Sharia as an individual lifestyle. The measure is also not a “scare tactic,” as Saad Mohammad, spokesman for the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, says. He may proclaim that “there’s no threat of Shariah law coming to Oklahoma and America, period,” but a quick look at Europe suggests otherwise.
Pages: 1 2