By lex, on December 1st, 2010
A federal judge in Oklahoma has issued an order putting on hold the certification of a ballot measure that forbids state courts from considering or using international laws, as well as Sharia, or Islamic law. That permanent injunction will allow the judge more time to consider the constitutional issues raised by State Question 755, which was approved by voters earlier this month.
Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange had earlier issued a temporary restraining order in favor of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which had sued to nullify the law completely.
The amendment would require Oklahoma courts to “rely on federal and state law when deciding cases” and “forbids courts from considering or using” either international law or Islamic religious law, known as Sharia, which the amendment defined as being based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.
To clarify, a US federal judge has denied the will of the citizens of Oklahoma, who expressed their preference on a 7-3 ratio, to have their societal compact administered solely under the laws of the United States of America and the state of Oklahoma.
Why would such a blindingly obvious referendum even be considered necessary?
The Oklahoma controversy stems from a New Jersey legal case in which a Muslim woman went to a family court asking for a restraining order against her spouse claiming he had raped her repeatedly. The judge ruled against her, saying that her husband was abiding by his Muslim beliefs regarding spousal duties. The decision was later overruled by an appellate court, but the case sparked a nationwide firestorm. The issue spread to Oklahoma, prompting the ballot initiative.
New Jersey, again.
It is not CAIR’s intent, obviously, to see the lives of all Oklahomans ruled by Sharia. Not yet. Sharia would only apply to those Oklahomans who willingly choose to submit themselves to comprehensive and sealed wisdom of a man dead for 1400 years. Used in other places to settle family matters, Sharia would give a Muslim woman certain rights she would not otherwise have under federal or state law, including:
- The right to be beaten for declining to share her husband’s bed.
- The right to share with her husband whatever diseases he may have lawfully acquired during a “temporary” marriage while on travel.
- The right to share her husband’s bed with up to three other wives, any one of whom may be divorced at any time and without reason.
- The right to have her testimony in a religious court count half as much as any man’s.
- The right to half shares in any inheritance, her male relatives receiving full value.
- The right to be considered, in the eyes of the law, inherently wicked, sinful and deficient.
- The right to cover her hair, and perhaps her entire form, the sight of an immodest woman being loathsome in the eyes of the God who made her.
- The over-arching right, as a catch-all, to be treated as inferior, second class and servile, if not actually chattel.
Under customary federal and Oklahoma law, a woman has none of these rights, and so the judge was wise and benificent in extending them to those who willingly choose, under such a cultural backdrop, to enjoy them.
Here, in America. Land of the free.
* 10-15-2018 Link Gone; no replacements found – Ed.
** 10-15-2018 Original link gone; replacement found – Ed.