Agree or disagree..http://news.yahoo.com/court-oklahoma-cant-enforce-sharia-law-ban-011240179.html

How can something that is not a law be weaved into a court ruling?

Totally disagree. I would think that no one would support rulings that make women 2nd class citizens and violate the Constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Laws discriminating among religions are subject to strict scrutiny, one of the aspects of which is the demonstration of a compelling state interest which is real, identifiable and not conjecture. Here's what the court had to say on the matter of Oklahoma's state interest.

 

"Appellants 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."

 

The law specifically singled out Islam and no other religion. That's problematic. The court identifies Oklahoma's interest as "valid" though not "compelling" under the law governing those definitions. The law also says that courts are prohibited not just from "applying" but from "considering" Sharia law. Good luck enforcing that one.

 

No one should want Sharia to start influencing court decisions and case outcomes, but this was a bad law.

 

You can read the 10th Circuit's opinion here.

How can something that is not a law be weaved into a court ruling?

Totally disagree. I would think that no one would support rulings that make women 2nd class citizens and violate the Constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

 

Contracts are the main way. And most contracts that would deal with like women as property or people being 2nd class citizens wouldn't be valid regardless if this law is in place. This law is not needed, while I don't want any part of sharia law, this law doesn't add any more protections than those that already exist.

Whoa Whoa Whoa, where is all this tolerance people preach about, where is all this freedom of religion rights peole want on here.

 

I told you all the Muslim Brotherhood (CAIR) had a plan to take over America and it is starting right here by getting their laws incorporated into America. Looks like they have moved past phase 3 and are now on phase 4. But no, you want to be nice and allow them to take over. Them being the Muslims.

 

“Phase Three: Escalation phase, prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers, through utilizing mass media. Currently in progress.

 

“Phase Four: Open public confrontation with the Government through exercising the political pressure approach. It is aggressively implementing the above-mentioned approach. Training on the use of weapons domestically and overseas in anticipation of zero-hour. It has noticeable activities in this regard.

I'm not well-versed on this topic and I'm certainly not an expert on Sharia law.

 

Can someone give me examples of what they fear with this ruling?

To follow on Clyde's question above, where is there a conflict/difference between Sharia and the accepted law in the US?

I'm not well-versed on this topic and I'm certainly not an expert on Sharia law.

 

Can someone give me examples of what they fear with this ruling?

 

It opens up our Constitution to be interpreted different for other religions. If we do something in Iran, do they go by the U.S Constitution or by Sharia Law.

Whoa Whoa Whoa, where is all this tolerance people preach about, where is all this freedom of religion rights peole want on here.

 

I told you all the Muslim Brotherhood (CAIR) had a plan to take over America and it is starting right here by getting their laws incorporated into America. Looks like they have moved past phase 3 and are now on phase 4. But no, you want to be nice and allow them to take over. Them being the Muslims.

 

“Phase Three: Escalation phase, prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers, through utilizing mass media. Currently in progress.

 

“Phase Four: Open public confrontation with the Government through exercising the political pressure approach. It is aggressively implementing the above-mentioned approach. Training on the use of weapons domestically and overseas in anticipation of zero-hour. It has noticeable activities in this regard.

 

There are all-white militia all over the US doing the same thing. Except they're conflicts happened in the 80s

There are all-white militia all over the US doing the same thing. Except they're conflicts happened in the 80s

 

Well I would rather be taken over by them than forced to Islamic Law and beliefs. At least they are American.

It opens up our Constitution to be interpreted different for other religions. I.

 

Too vague for me. Give me some potential real-life examples.

Too vague for me. Give me some potential real-life examples.

 

Not possible. The Tenth Circuit was unable to find an example and even the appellants in this case, arguing FOR the law, were completely unable to find even one instance where a court in this country used Sharia in deciding a case.

When people think of Sharia law they think of honor killings, women not being allowed to to school or go out in public without male escorts, women being punished by their fathers or husbands in a manner that would normally land a guy in jail, cutting off of limbs for violating the law and stoning people as a punishment.

I guess if you eliminate these differences, then why would you need Sharia law?

When people think of Sharia law they think of honor killings, women not being allowed to to school or go out in public without male escorts, women being punished by their fathers or husbands in a manner that would normally land a guy in jail, cutting off of limbs for violating the law and stoning people as a punishment.

I guess if you eliminate these differences, then why would you need Sharia law?

 

Are you saying you believe a US court would allow cutting off of limbs?

Here you go, here is the real life example that did happen.

 

 

And now a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife -- not because he didn't do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: "This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

 

 

 

 

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/sharia-in-new-jersey-muslim-husband-rapes-wife-judge-sees-no-sexual-assault-because-husbands-religio.html