Jump to content

Oklahoma and Sharia

Recommended Posts

Yah, OK, I had missed this one earlier this month.


Apparently the good citizens of Oklahoma have amended their constitution to forbid Oklahoma judges from applying Sharia (Islamic Law) or other "international" law in their fair state.


Now, granted, judges wear robes and folks in the middle east also wear robes... but I'm left wonderin' about the state of bizarre fear in our nation. Or the state of fear causin' us to be bizarre. Or something.


I really wasn't aware that an outbreak of Sharia required intervention, especially given that such an outbreak would already run afoul of da Establishment Clause. Certainly wasn't figurin' on such an outbreak in Oklahoma. Their problems in da past have been with fearful Christians sporting fertilizer bombs.


So what gives? Or what do people think? And can anybody share what "international law" folks are afraid of?




Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is not a trivial concern.


A few years (two?) ago a judge adjudicating a case of spousal rape in New Jersey, threw out the charges against the husband because the husband's religion entitled him to sex on demand from his wife in accordance with Sharia. Fortunately an appeals court reinstated the case and corrected this error.


There is nothing to prevent individuals from applying Sharia to civil contracts or other relations between or among them. What the Oklahoma initiative does, as I understand it, is re assert the predominance of non Sharia law, as it exists in Oklahoma, over Sharia.


The issue of international law is a bit more subtle. Justice Scalia acknowledged that he occasionally relies on non US law when looking at very old British precedents that still influence our law. The main issue with international law as I understand it would be unlikely to come up in an Oklahoma court, but could be a real issue in federal court, where some judges have referred to foreign cases in their opinions. I am not aware of any decisions turning on the application of foreign law, but conceivably that could happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sharia law overlaps our secular laws on such topics as crime (eye for an eye), politics (electoral procedures) and economics (charging of interest), as well as personal matters sex, hygiene, diet, and prayer. Muslim minorities have introduced Sharia family law, for use in their own disputes, with varying degrees of success.


Now, does that mean that it should be entertained or endorsed (two different concepts) by our legal system? I think that if a case involves a Muslim individual, yes, the judge/jury should take that into account but by no means base the decision solely on that fact. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see nothing wrong with creating that law myself.


Nah, there might not be an epidemic concerning tnat law, but .......


A woman won a $2,000,000.00 lawsuit against MacDonalds because she shoved a steaming hot cup of coffee - contained in a styrofoam cup - between her legs of her own free will..and the almighty 1/16 inch layer of styropfoam did not hold up!


As stupid s that case was, and even though I think the judge should have not only tossed it out, but also fined both the woman and her lawyer....you have to admit: That was a slick lawyer. He did a great job - dispicable as it was.


So what's to say a lawyer can't - in the unforeseen future - have a jurt clear a man of plain old fashioned murder by claiming that the man only followed his religious priciples as he was raised and followed all his life...thus not actually committing murder, but clensing his home in the name od Sharia.


Yeah, far fetched right? But so was spilling a cup of coffee in your own damn lap and collecting $2.000,000.00 from somebody else because.........YOU DID IT!

Link to post
Share on other sites

An Amish woman was in a car accident. Amish are not allowed to drive but are allowed to be given a ride by the English. A truck driver, talking on his phone (or was he texting?) plowed into a line of cars at 65 mph killing a few, maiming a few, hospitalizing a few, etc.


The Amish woman, who does not posess any insurance, did not sue (not part of their religion to gain from another's mistakes) but many other parties (English folk) did. The truck driving company carried $1,000,000 in liability (standard) which was easily gobbled up by the other lawsuits. The company did pay some of the Amish woman's medical bills but not all. Now the woman has a large amount she still owes.


If she is sued, should the American justice system take her religious views into account? IMO, yes. Not necessarily as the major deciding factor but that fact should not be totally excluded or inadmissable either. Same for Sharia.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Acco, I strongly disagree. The woman's religion should have absolutely no bearing on her liability and should not be at all considered in a hearing. It is irrelevant. Liability should be determined solely on the law and equally applied. That is why I like the Oklahoma law. It really eliminates all religious law from being applied in our courts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd tell the woman that she is not GAINING anything. She is only recovering what she had lost or taken from her.


But aside from that, the courts should still hold the driver/insurance company completely liable and responcible for paying the full amount. As for wether or not the woman takes it ...then it is up to her and her religious views.


Thus the laws are based on equal fair to all/non religious point of views, but the people are still free to follow their religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I don't think religion should be a major player in the court's decision but it should not be excluded - i.e. in admissable.


I'm more a believer in the British legal system that, to my understanding, does not throw out evidence. Say the police illegally obtained evidence by breaking into your home. If I ruled the world, that evidence would be admissable in court but I would also prosecute the police that broke the law too. Justice should be blind in the way it administers to all in an equal fashion, but not blind as to evidence brought to bare in a case.


For example, if I've taken a vow of poverty, due to my religious beliefs and I get divorced, I think that fact should be weighed by any court decision trying to decide alimony, child support, etc. I'm not saying I should not have to pay anything, but the evidence is evidence. Just like the fact that if I was a multi-milllionaire, that evidence should be part of the equation.


(This message has been edited by acco40)

Link to post
Share on other sites



Conscientious objectors are not excluded from military service in times of a draft.


They will be assigned a non-combat role. I agree with Gern as far as the facts of a case are decided and the guilt or innocence is determined. I do believe that factors such as religious beliefs can be taken into account in sentencing. In fact, I do not think that insanity should ever be a defense but it should be considered at sentencing instead.


Sharia law should not be used to determine guilt or innocence in courts in the USA just as USA law will not ever be considered in countries under Sharia law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...