Monday, September 12, 2011

`Anti-sharia law in Oklahoma heard by fderal appeals court

70% of Oklahoma voters approved the anti-sharia legislation yet it is going to be heard in federal court.


Hamas-linked CAIR is making whining noises again, saying there is no reason for this kind of law.  Why, if it is a useless law, are Hamas-limked CAIR and other Muslim  groups have said, are they so violently against it.

From The Denver Channel September 12 by Deb Stanley

Denver Court To Hear Oklahoma Islamic Law Case

A federal appeals court on Monday was set to consider Oklahoma's voter-approved law that prohibits state courts from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.

A federal judge in November blocked implementation of State Question 755, which was approved by 70 percent of voters last November. The executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, Muneer Awad, had filed the lawsuit challenging the constitutional amendment.

Awad had asked the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the injunction. He said the measure, if enacted, violates his religious freedoms and would invalidate his will, which is based in part on Islamic Law.

The lawsuit claims, in part, that the measure transforms Oklahoma's Constitution into an enduring condemnation of Islam by singling it out.

In blocking the law's passage in a ruling Nov. 29, District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange agreed with Awad.

"It would be incomprehensible if, as plaintiff alleges, Oklahoma could condemn the religion of its Muslim citizens, yet one of those citizens could not defend himself in court against his government's preferment of other religious views," she wrote in her ruling.

The measure's author, Republican Rep. Rex Duncan, has said the constitutional amendment was not intended as an attack on Muslims but an effort to prevent activist judges from relying on international law or Islamic law when ruling on legal cases.

The American Civil Liberties Union supports Awad's challenge to the law, saying supporters acknowledge that state courts have never improperly relied on Islamic law.

In New Jersey last year, the state appeals court reversed a ruling by a judge who refused to grant a restraining order to a Bayonne, N.J., woman against her Muslim husband, according to the Jersey Journal.

Hudson County Judge Joseph Charles Jr. ruled in a civil matter that the man was acting on his belief that his wife must submit to his desire to have sex. The appellate court ruled that Charles improperly considered the man's religious beliefs in denying the restraining order.

No comments: