Should SHARIA LAW Be Used In Judges' Rulings?

Oklahomans voted to ban the use of Sharia Law by state judges, but there's now a lawsuit by an Islamic group to overturn it, according to the following article. The group succeeded Monday in getting a temporary order to block the Oklahoma State Election Board from certifying the results of the vote. A hearing  is set for Nov. 22
   . . . June

------------------------

Judge halts Sharia law ban’s effect
Tulsa Beacon: posted on Thursday, November 11th, 2010

An Islamic group wants to overturn a vote by Oklahomans to ban the use of Sharia law by state judges.

Muneer Awad, executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), filed a lawsuit last Thursday to overturn the measure and allow the Islamic law to influence judicial cases in Oklahoma. About 70 percent of the voters in Oklahoma on Nov. 2 approved an amendment to the state constitution that would ban the use of international law, and Sharia law.

Awad succeeded Monday in getting a temporary order to block the Oklahoma State Election Board from certifying the results of the vote. A hearing for a permanent injunction is set for Nov. 22. According to the lawsuit, Awad said the vote has taken away “much of the bounty of religious liberty” he enjoys under the U.S. Constitution. And Awad claims it will lead to religious prejudice.


“Surely, people will whisper, there must be something deeply threatening about Muneer’s faith. For why else would the great state of Oklahoma allocate space in the state’s most cherished document to burden Muneer’s faith and no other. There must be something hidden away commensurate to condemnation on such a grand scale,” according to the introduction of the filing.

Awad is a practicing Muslim who relies on two core sources for his faith: the Quran and recorded teachings of “Islam’s prophet.”

State Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, and Sen. Anthony Sykes, R-Moore, authored the amendment because of the growing use of international law in judicial consideration - even the U.S. Supreme Court. Duncan has said that cases should be decided on principles found in the U.S. and Oklahoma constitutions and American law - not on international precepts.

Duncan has said that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and that he wanted to ensure that the courts could not undermine those founding principles.

The lawsuit claims, “The initiative’s architects have variously referred to State Question 755 as a preemptive strike, a response to a looming threat, and as a much needed legal reinforcement to the Oklahoma’s Judeo-Christian values.

Read entire article

----------------------

There are always two sides to a story. Do you think that religious freedom in the US should protect Sharia Law? Please leave your comments.

June

-----------

Sharia Law Ruling In The United States

Sharia Law Ruling In The United States

 It's time that someone took this issue  and explained how it works and what impact it has here in America. Obviously, Sharia Law is still practice here depending on the person's beliefs and according to the article below, even judges are sometimes guilty of erring against the victim. Fortunately, in this case, the verdict was overturned.
   . . . June


-----------------------------------------------



Hysteria At Heritage
James Downie   September 3, 2010 | 2:06 pm

The New Republic: "Cully Stimson, one of the Heritage Foundation's 'leading' legal experts, wants to educate the internet about 'The Real Impact of Sharia Law in America.' I think there are some problems with his opening example, though:

Does Sharia law allow a husband to rape his wife, even in America? A New Jersey trial judge thought so. In a recently overturned case, a “trial judge found as a fact that defendant committed conduct that constituted a sexual assault” but did not hold the defendant liable because the defendant believed he was exercising his rights over the victim.

Sounds insidious! Except, as the part I've bolded makes clear, the case was overturned. Stimson not only admits as much, but later on uses the appellate court's decision to strengthen his own case:

Fortunately, the New Jersey appellate court refused to tolerate the trial judge’s “mistaken” and unsustainable decision. The appellate court chastised the trial judge’s ruling, holding among other things that he held an “unnecessarily dismissive view of defendant’s acts of domestic violence,” and that his views of the facts in the case “may have been colored by his perception that…they were culturally acceptable and thus not actionable – -a view we soundly reject.” Although appellate courts typically defer to findings of fact by trial judges, under the circumstances, this appellate court correctly refused to do so, and reversed the trial court and ordered the permanent restraining order to issue.

Surely, then, this is just an aberrant case of a judge making a wildly incorrect decision? Not so, warns Stimson. "Make no mistake about it," he writes, "this is no isolated incident."

Read more of the article . .

News About Sharia Law Brings Out Both sides Of The Issue

The recent mention of Sharia Law in the news has brough out both sides of the morality issue. Whether you are a proponent of the law or you're against it, this has certainly started a dialogue. Check out the articles below
  
. . . June

Sharia law threatens Moscow control in Muslim Chechnya August 26, 2010 at 10:50 AM MOSCOW, Russia (Reuters) - Aspects of sharia law imposed in Muslim Chechnya in recent months are inching the republic closer to autonomy and posing a renewed threat to Kremlin control, analysts say. Ramzan Kadyrov, the President of Chechnya, speaks during an interview with Reuters at his private offices near the town of Gudermes outside the Chechen capital Grozny, December 16, 2009. (REUTERS/Denis Sinyakov/Files) The Kremlin relies on its hardline Chechen leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, to maintain order in the violent region in the North Caucasus, where separatists were driven from power a decade ago after two wars. Analysts say Kadyrov's methods to tame the region include a crackdown on opponents... Tea for Two: You say Sharia, I say Commandments August 26, 2010 at 10:15 AM After reading yesterday's Washington Post "On Faith"column, it seems as though some read the Bible with rose-colored glasses (which could conceivably double as teacups during Wonderland parties). One such anti-Sharia activist was quoted as saying: I study the Koran, I study the Internet… I'm not anti-Islam. I'm anti-Terrorist. But if you take quotes from the Bible and compare them to the Koran, the Bible... Far From Ground Zero, Obscure Pastor Is Ignored No Longer August 26, 2010 at 1:29 AM GAINESVILLE, Fla. — If building an Islamic center near ground zero amounts to the epitome of Muslim insensitivity, as critics of the project have claimed, what should the world make of Terry Jones, the evangelical pastor here who plans to memorialize the Sept. 11 attacks with a bonfire of Korans? Related The Lede Blog: One Church's Reasons to Hate Islam, Challenged by an Expert (August 25, 2010) Looking at Islamic Center Debate, World Sees U.S. (August 26, 2010) Times Topics: Muslim Community Center in Lower Manhattan (Park51) | Islam Chip Litherland for The New York Times For local Muslims like Saeed Khan, the collective rejection of Mr. Jones represents the America they want to... This email was sent to dyna999399.sharia99@blogger.com. Delivered by Feed My Inbox 230 Franklin Road Suite 814 Franklin, TN 37064 Account Login Unsubscribe Here

An Eye For An Eye - But The Judge's Sentence is Paralysis?

Different cultures deal with different life situations. According to Sharia Law, the victim can ask the court for "an eye for an eye" sentence. In this case, the victim was paralyzed and he requested equal treatment. This article by CNN gives some detail.
  . . . June



Saudi Arabia urged not to paralyze man as retribution punishment - CNN.com: 

"(CNN) -- Amnesty International on Friday urged Saudi Arabian authorities not to paralyze a man as punishment for his having paralyzed someone else, allegedly during a fight.

The Saudi newspaper Okaz reported that the judge in the case had sent letters to several hospitals in Saudi Arabia asking if they could sever a man's spinal cord, as the man he allegedly stabbed had requested and, under sharia law, was his right to seek.

But such a punishment would amount 'to nothing less than torture,' said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, acting director of the organization's Middle East and North Africa Programme. 'While those guilty of a crime should be held accountable, intentionally paralyzing a man in this way would constitute torture, and be a breach of its international human rights obligations.'"

The paralyzed man, 22-year-old Abdul-Aziz al-Mitairy, told Okaz that the accused stabbed him in the back with a large knife during a fight more than two years ago. "The accused confessed to the crime in front of police, resulting in a general sentence of seven months," he told the newspaper.

During that time, the court in the northwest province of Tabuk debated how to carry out the surgery the paralyzed man was seeking as punishment for his alleged attacker, news reports said.

Read More