Tags

, , , , , , ,

Oklahoma State Representative Rex Duncan (R-Sands Springs) authored State Question 755, which requires state courts to rely only on federal and state laws when deciding cases, and forbids courts to consider international law or Sharia law. It will appear on the November 2, 2010 general election ballot for the voters to decide.

The press scoffed at the proposal. They have labeled it as unnecessary. Muslims have described it as bigoted and anti-Muslim. Razi Hashmi, executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American –Islamic relations refers to Representative Duncan’s backing of a proposal to ban head scarfs on driver’s license photographs and his refusing to accept the Quran as a gift.

From “Tulsa World”:

“John Swails, director of the Center for Israel and Middle East Studies at Oral Roberts University, said Sharia law is a compilation of laws from the Quran, the Islamic holy book, from the teachings of Muhammad, and from biographies of Muhammad. It has been honed into its present shape by centuries of precedent. He said Sharia law is “pretty well solidified” but differs somewhat between Islamic nations. Swails, who will teach two courses on Islam this fall at ORU, said he supports the Oklahoma proposal because he sees some evidence of a move across the U.S. to embrace Sharia law, although not in Oklahoma. “

I would say that Professor Swails has a point as reported ACT! For America (disclosure – a group I support financially and intellectually):

“Jihad Watch reported on Saturday (see story below, highlights added) that a New Jersey judge ruled that a Muslim man, accused of forcing non-consensual sex on his wife, was not guilty because of his religious beliefs.”

Part of the so called impartial judge’s statement reads as follows:

“This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”

He is basically saying that because of the husband’s belief in Sharia Law and Islam that he did not trample on the individual rights of his wife, because according to Sharia Law; she has no individual rights. She only has duties to submit to her husbands will and demands, no matter how unreasonable anyone outside of Islam or Sharia may view those demands. This might be fine in Saudi Arabia, but it happened in New Jersey!

As ACT! For America reports, the case was ultimately reversed by an appellate court. The appellate court understood it’s duty to remain impartial and to exclude religious beliefs from the law. It’s a good thing the appellate court took that view; otherwise, we may have found ourselves back in the days of the Spanish Inquisition and Salam Witch Trials; including burning at the stake for non-believers, heretics, apostates and forces outside the “true” church (whatever that may be).

If you are interested in this story, you can find it at the Jihad Watch site. I’d recommend reading it, because sooner or later, most likely sooner, our whacked out Massachusetts Courts will make a ruling similar to original judge on this case. But, unlike New Jersey our appellate courts and corrupt legislature will fight to codify some aspects of Sharia into U.S. Law, no matter how far it resides from the Constitutional protections guaranteed for U.S. citizens and protected visitors.

There may, indeed, be a need to understand Islam better on the part of Americans, but there is absolutely no need to pervert justice or United States law to accommodate any religion, period. The law is the law and ours is based on secular ideals.

This country was founded on the principle that all men are created equal and possess unalienable rights. To now say that some people are entitled to religious considerations stands this Republic on its head by declaring that some rights are less guaranteed than others and that some have more rights and greater authority over others by virtue of their religion and not their ability and earned station. Decisions like this one from New Jersey makes me wonder what has happened to America and just how much more of this nonsense are we to tolerate before we begin heating up the oil and plucking feathers once again.