Oklahoma = Interesting ?

WELL WELL WELL...hot news :

"Oklahoma just had an initiative on their ballot that states they will or will not allow Shriah law or international law to be involved in American Courts. Oklahoma agreed that there should only be American law in our courts, and a Muslim is suing Oklahoma for it now.."

THE FULL ARTICLE

Just two days after Oklahoma voters approved a ballot measure banning state courts from considering Islamic or international law when ruling on cases, a local Muslim has filed a federal lawsuit saying the measure is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit against ballot measure, State Question 755 or better known as "Save Our State" -- seeks a temporary restraining order to block the results of the election from being certified by the state Election Board on Nov. 9. The measure is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1.

Oklahoma residents approved the measure with 70 percent of the vote in Tuesday's election.

But Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma who filed the lawsuit, said that the measure is unnecessary because there is no threat of an Islamic takeover of state courts. Muslims make up only 30,000 of the state's nearly 4 million residents less than 1 percent.

Awad said the measure violates his First Amendment right to freedom of religion because it singles out Islam. He said the measure is just another way to politically savage Muslims.

The Islamic community in Oklahoma has complained about the past actions of the state legislature, including a proposal to forbid Muslim women from wearing head garments in driver's license photos and refusing to accept a Koran from a Muslim advisory council at an official state ceremony.

Proponents of the anti-Islamic law measure have cited a New Jersey family court judge's decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him.

The judge ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs and that he did not have "criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" his wife.

But New Jersey's Appellate Court overturned the decision in July, ruling that the husband's religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, "was mistaken."

Shariah is the basis of law in most Islamic countries, though its implementation varies. It has been used in Iran and Somalia, among other places, to condone harsh punishments like amputations and stoning.

Proponents of the Oklahoma ballot measure say the possibility of Shariah law coming to American isn't remote, pointing to Britain, where at least 85 Shariah courts are operating.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

SOURCES :

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-muslim-sues-to-block-ballot-measure/article/3511236

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/04/muslim-sues-oklahoma-anti-shariah-ballot-measure/

-----------------------
REMEMBER; do not attack the poster sweethearts. I am only sharing news, don't bite my head off. Focus over your thoughts about the post.

I think it makes a lot of sense, especially that in my own belief. Despite where I from from, when I'm out of my country I should abide with the rules and the laws of the country I am willing to reside in.
It's a way of living..i guess

Despite where I from from, when I'm out of my country I should abide with the rules and the laws of the country I am willing to reside in.

^^

Amen to that. When you enter someone's home, you treat them with the respect they deserve and that you expect to get in return when they visit you. ( when in doubt, always reverse the situation)

Well, I am from Oklahoma and I am one of those that voted against allowing a foreign law to be in our courts.

If they want their laws to apply then they need to go to their country! It is not about religion, but merely about being an American.

Bring the law suite on and I guarantee you that most of us Okies will be sitting there at the state capitol let our voices be heard!

Yah.. I was slightly peeved when I heard about the law suit. All I can say is they can kiss the same side I sit on everyday....

"aaghh someone's busy googling" :)

-lol

I have to agree, you move to another country, you abide by their laws. No one is saying they can't practice their religion, seems ridiculous to me.

I'm undecided to be honest. I'm not sure whether what happened was a blessing or not. not because I'm against Islamic law. not at all. but because I do not think it would have been rightly applied there or they even have the people educated and knowledgeable in Islamic and Islamic law enough to judge in such matters. so it would have created a more mess maybe. or maybe it would have cleared things up and demolish the lies spread about such laws if someone applied it correctly. no idea.

what I can say is I am not surprised one bit of after reading the article above that people voted against having courts that would apply shaira law or take it into consideration.

actually an incident like the one of the ---excuse my language--- the animal who forced his wife sexually would be a reason enough for the wife to file a divorce suit in courts and that creature would be forced to divorce her. what we call here kholeeh.

as to immigration. I agree that when you move to a country you respect their rules and laws. but what people are forgetting is that there are indeed people who are American Muslims. Islam is a religion/belief and not a nationality. so people who are Muslims are not only foreigners.

There is also the fact that the courts that would have considered Islamic law would only apply it to Muslims. it's not like all Ok would have been invaded by Islamic law. I can not even deny the fact that the law is indeed needed in certain aspects, like in personal affairs. divorce, marriage, custody, inheritance. all disputes concerning such have certain and different rules and laws in Islam. look at Egypt for example, I study both personal affairs for Muslims and Non Muslims and we have courts for each here, it does not come in the way at all. however such is just for personal affairs.criminal and other civil and administration matters are subject to laws that are not influenced by religion.

I would have suggested people sitting with those who want Islamic law to be considered in certain matters and knowing to what extent and what would be the pros and cons and why do they want that and if it will in any way affect others.. etc. before voting for or against. I would have suggested people who wanted such law to considered to reach to others and explain and spread awareness about such law. which it does not btw murder or stone people for adultery or cut hands for thievery if applied correctly. correctly being the keyword here. I'm not sure it would have been if it were to be applied there.

I do not think people should vote without fully understanding first. but then i'm also against oppressing a certain group. you'll only affect your country in the process. it was not needed.

I would have suggested people sitting with those who want Islamic law to be considered in certain matters and knowing to what extent and what would be the pros and cons and why do they want that and if it will in any way affect others.. etc. before voting for or against.

^^
ya but how would that work ?

''ya but how would that work ?''

Organization? the media can play a role here. a clean one for a change. but then so should the people, there should be someone from those who wanted such to laws to be considered that can be reached and people can talk to. there should be people who are willing enough to dig after something and know all aspects before judging. I'm not sure about the USA but here such groups have certain places you could always reach them at. I'm sure if you went and asked any one who is for such step though them you would know. there has to be someone somewhere willing to talk. you think not? actually from what I know they are screaming but no one is hearing.

Britt, if it is indeed unconstitutional then how is it settled by voting?

actually the I think you should look into the first amendment and the letter of Jefferson that stated the wall of septation between church and state. and other letters concerning religion he wrote and why he said such to know it is not unconstitutional at all. what is unconsitutional is your country being a Christian country. or a Muslim country. or a Jewish country. because at that time there were many civil wars because of people trying to force their religion on others. however here they are not trying to force your religion on you at all. actually it will only apply to them. you must also consider that we have now many problems that were not very common back then. like divorce and custody of children..etc. so such is needed.

''The courts do not base any ruling on religion - any religion..''

I read something different about that. but let me see where I did and get it. I have no idea if it's true or not though.

---

yes, I hope Sherry would shed some light on the whole issue.

I know Britt. I said it's unconstitutional having the country named as Christian or any other religion for that matter.

faith is crumbling everywhere. along with morals and language. even here in the east. most people do not know their religion anymore or their language. even ethics and morals are vanishing. it's sad. even cultural and traditions are considered a joke.

I don't see what's forced down your throat? I don't even think that such law if it had passed would have affected you at all to be honest. it would have been only used in settling disputes for those who are Muslims. like say in case of divorced and the husband does not want to pay the ''moakhar'' which is a sum of number paid in case of divorce in Muslim marriages. or he wants to take the children because the woman is getting married, which you can do in certain legal systems but you can not do in Islam. even inheritance in Islam is not by will. you can not write a will that exceeds 1/3 of what you left. so a will is not valid if it exceeds 1/3 of everything you left. there are so many things. all those won't at all affect you. so it's not really shoved down your throat.

The media did do a good job about explaining both sides of the state question you all are discussing; however, with that said, many of us are still against it.

If passed, the courts could then decided to use foreign law to justify any penalties or punishment that they saw fit.

In civil cases regarding foreigners, they could ask that their law be applied instead of America's. Meaning in a bad scenario that if a woman left her husband for being abusive then the courts could deny her divorce under foreign law and punish the woman the same as her country would see fit for her leaving her husband.

There are pro's and con's to everything in life, but this state question carried more cons with it than pro's.

We are not discussing their religion here; only their laws, and Oklahoma dais NO. They can practice their religion all they want; however, if they want to practice foreign law or have a foreign law ruling then they need to go back to their foreign country.

I, personally, do not want to sit in my native country in a courtroom and have it be up to the judge whether or not I would be tried on foreign laws or native laws. This is my country and I want, no I demand, that if I am ever in a courtroom then I be given the courtesy of having AMERICAN LAWS!

If we accepted the Muslim law then our hands would be forced to accept ALL foreign laws eventually and that is not within our constitution!

What would happen if we went to say Iran, are we going to be given the option to be judged by our laws or theirs? I am pretty sure we all know the answer.

On a slightly different tack, some months back there was a court case in Perth Australia where a Muslim women refused to take her veil, burqa, niqab to give evidence, after due consideration by the Judge she was ordered to remove her veil to give evidence, citing "Her decision to wear the niqab was for "reasons of modesty" and a "personal preference" in her interpretation of Islam, rather than a requirement of her religion..."

On a slightly different tack, some months back there was a court case in Perth Australia where a Muslim women refused to take her veil, burqa, niqab to give evidence, after due consideration by the Judge she was ordered to remove her veil to give evidence, citing "Her decision to wear the niqab was for "reasons of modesty" and a "personal preference" in her interpretation of Islam, rather than a requirement of her religion..."

^^^why is she required to take off her niqab for ?
it's a part if her religion. knowing that we said religion is a belief. What has that to do with law

and no it's a requirement !

>besides you can't ask a nun to take off her custom ..doesn't happen anywhere, for any reason! Even in Islamic countries. Cause Christians and churches are everywhere .

But again this is issue is common here, some schools don't allow veiled girls to attend, unless they take their veil off..
--------------

MY Question is : how would her veil effect the credibility of her evidence!

To test the validity of somebodies testimony facial expressions can be crucial ie body language

As Hellon has said she is required to remove her veil in an Islamic court of law so why not here

Or is it a case of stupidity getting in the way of political correctness

Ha.. If he had facial burns he has more than likely lost the ability to express himself through facial expression, so it maybe a mute point...

Mmmm it's a sticky situation...

Ha.. If he had facial burns he has more than likely lost the ability to express himself through facial expression, so it maybe a mute point...

^^

LOL haha nice

and ya no one will stop me either from putting my christmas tree, cause exactly it doesn't hold anything sybmolic ...

and my mistake I didn't pay attention that the veil Nicko talked about was the one that covers the whole face. It's a different situation now.
I meant a completely different thing.