FaithWorld

Voters say no to sharia in … Oklahoma?

November 3, 2010

If you happen to get caught shop lifting in the U.S. state of Oklahoma, rest assured — you won’t lose a limb as punishment.

Voters in the conservative state bordering Texas approved a measure on Tuesday that will forbid judges of the state’s courts from considering or using sharia (Islamic law) when deciding cases. And they did so by a whopping margin of 70 to 30 percent.

For the record, sharia is currently not the law of the land in Oklahoma, but local media reports say the measure’s backers wanted it in place to pre-empt any such moves.

INDONESIA/

State Question no. 755 included the following wording:

“ This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.”

There is a lot of suspicion of Islam in the American heartland but is it fair to ask: is such a measure really necessary? What do you think?

(With additional reporting by Ben Fenwick in Oklahoma City)

(Photo: A member of the Islamic group Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia takes a picture using a cell phone during a protest in Jakarta September 23, 2010. The protesters were demanding that sharia law be imposed in Indonesia. Oklahoma voters on Tuesday said they wanted no part of that.REUTERS/Beawiharta)

Comments
8 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

This law is ridiculous and absurd, however it does display the deep rooted racism and bigotry present in Oklahoma society.

There are some issues that need to be resolved however. Muslim marriages are based on a Nikah e Nama which is indirectly or directly based upon Muslim Personal Law or Shariah Law. Does the Oklahoma Law invalidate the marriages of the 15000 Muslims who live in Oklahoma.

Just like Jewish life is guided by Talmudic Laws, Muslim lives are guided by many aspects of Shariah Law. For example will the OK Law prohibit the sale of Halal meat which is similar to Kosher laws.

Jews and Muslims adhere to male circumcision. Will the OK Law ban circumcision which is loosely based on Shariah requirements. Will the OK law ban male circumcision?

Jews and Muslim have certain dietary restrictions with reference to pork. Will the OK laws force Muslims to eat pork and deny them their personal shariah law?

Muslims govern their lives by giving 2.5% of their income to local charities and the poor. Will the OK law prohibit the alms giving to local charities?

Does the OK Law ban the scarf, the mosques, the prayers, fasting, and Quran–all of which are part and parcel of Muslim personal lives governed by personal Shariah?

If the answer to the above and other questions is yes, then the law runs contrary to the US constitution and will not be able to stand a constitutional test. If it si allowed to stay, how will OK govern the lives of the 15000 Muslims?

Is a law against Talmudic Law next?

Editor Musalman Times
http://www.musalmantimes.com

Posted by EditorRupeeNews | Report as abusive
 

Shameful and disgraceful, not to mention against the 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment (and thus, the de-establishment) of a religion. If they wanted to ban all religious law, that would be perfectly in line with the Constitution, if a little repetitive. Only banning Islamic law is legalized bigotry, and they don’t care who knows it. Oklahoma voters should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by sali18 | Report as abusive
 

I believe this was a very smart decision on behalf of Oklahoma Voters, I am one of them. This is in no way shameful or disgraceful. We the voters of Oklahoma decide the way we want to live in our Great State. Anybody coming to live here must abide by the Laws of this land. Those desiring Sharia Law have the FREEDOM to emigrate from this country and immigrate to the countries where it is currently enforced. God Bless the U.S.A.

Posted by DoItRightToday | Report as abusive
 

Did either of the previous posters even read the article? It’s referring to the consideration of Sharia Law in the courtroom, not in one’s personal life, so no, I don’t think this amendment was designed to interfere with circumcisions or the decision whether or not to eat pork(???).Rather, the “I beat my wife because she wouldn’t sleep with me, but Sharia Law allows it” defense is off the table before it can even be presented. I commend OK for adopting such a law, and am curious why my state (IL) isn’t following suit.

Posted by juanblunt1 | Report as abusive
 

Good for Oklahoma! It is apparent that the 2 previous posters are of the Islamic faith. Commanded by Allah that all will bow to Islam. The US will not become Europe, we may have civil war but we will not be Islamicized! Our first war was against Islamic terrorism who were doing what the Qur’an and Allah commanded. Our last will be the same. Someday maybe we can be moral without the idea that a particular religion is the only “right” one. Now my politicians will listen to the argument of passing similar laws.

Posted by FirstGenUSA | Report as abusive
 

Dear Friends juanblunt1 and FirstGenUSA. There is obviously a time lag before the comments post. Good comments!

Posted by DoItRightToday | Report as abusive
 

I wish the specific Sharia laws were defined. I heard that one law had to do with limiting usary. Maybe the courts should look at the best of the Muslim Cultures ideas not the worst such as dehumanizing women and mutilating people in the name of justice. Wouldn’t it be better to have someone who steals work for that person double than cut off their hand? How many times have people made a mistake in their cry for justice.

Posted by tutor57 | Report as abusive
 

I don’t remember Congress passing a law against Sharia law. The voters of Oklahoma passed the law. The federal judge has far overstepped her bounds.

Posted by MitchSmith62 | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/