Oklahoma voters face question on Islamic law

Oklahoma voters face question on Islamic law

www.cnn.com

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (CNN) -- Oklahoma voters are considering an unusual question that will appear on their ballots this Tuesday: whether Islamic law can be used in considering cases in state court.

The question is the doing of State Rep. Rex Duncan. The Republican is the main author of State Question 755, also known as the "Save our State" constitutional amendment, one of 11 questions on the state ballot.

The question might seem a befuddling one for a ballot in the heartland, but it stems from a New Jersey legal case in which a Muslim woman went to a family court asking for a restr

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in Oklahoma

I am surprised that this has got to go to a vote. The Constitution clearly states that no law shall be passed to favor one religion over another.

Beyond this, the article states that a judge rules in favor of a Muslim man raping his wife because it was within his Islamic beliefs. It was later overturned but for a judge to say that it's OK for a woman to be raped, here in the United States, because of a persons belief is beyond my belief.

If this law happens to pass, it would set up a domino effect for starter religions to have doctrines that are contrary to the law of the land and rape happens to be against the law, even though it's a mans' wife. Does this mean that a woman doesn't have rights after she's married? Must she stay single to be protected by the law?

What I'm trying to say that this shouldn't have to go to a public referendum because the law is already written in the Constitution.

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by Intelearthling
I am surprised that this has got to go to a vote. The Constitution clearly states that no law shall be passed to favor one religion over another.

Beyond this, the article states that a judge rules in favor of a Muslim man raping his wife because it was within his Islamic beliefs. It was later overturned but for a judge to say that it's OK for a woman to be raped, here in the United States, because of a persons belief is beyond my belief.

What I'm trying to say that this shouldn't have to go to a public referendum because the law is already written in the Constitution.

Well, I see a problem in the fact that we already have a Supreme Court where several justices want to take into account "international" law when making decisions. This seems to lock justices into using American constitutional law rather than looking to other countries or other platforms such as Sharia. Just the fact that one judge already found it acceptable to rule in favor of spousal rape due to a person's religious belief shows that this is not an unreasonable law.

reply to post by Intelearthling


Wow, had not heard this one. Good to see what my fellow Oklahomans are accomplishing. This guy should be in line for the next Governor of my great state. Yes this was all sarcasm. I swear we find the absolute dumbest people for our political leaders here. Way to push a non-issue guy.

After having experienced the way some evangelical fundamentalist churches attempt to influence local laws and judges, I would support any local or federal measure that prohibits the use of ANY religious law in a secular court of law.

And just because a law is supported by passages in a holy book, that doesn't make it a religious law. A religious law is enforced because the deity of choice requires it. A secular law is one that has been approved by a majority of the electorate, and is enforced because the PEOPLE wish it to be.

My religion and your religion do not belong in OUR government.

peace to all
Montana

reply to post by Montana


"Thou shalt not kill" and Thou shalt not steal" are Judaic law and observed by Christians through the Ten Commandments.

Should we strike down existing laws concerning these two offenses to conform with the Constitution?

This Islamic ruling will allow Muslim men to rape their wives without any consequences. If this law passes, I'll bet they'll be a lot of converts by low-life Americans that don't even have a religion.

reply to post by Intelearthling


um, ok, i'll repeat the second para of my post, since you didn't understand what I was saying the first time....

"And just because a law is supported by passages in a holy book doesn't make it a religious law. A religious law is enforced because the deity of choice requires it. A secular law is one that has been approved by a majority of the electorate, and is enforced because the PEOPLE wish it to be."

My religion and your religion do not belong in OUR government.

peace to all
Montana

reply to post by Intelearthling


It seems you completely misunderstand the intention of the question itself. Oklahoma is a vastly conservative state, and the chances of that passing are zero. That means it would ban international law from factoring into cases within the state of OK....although it should be the same everywhere in the U.S.

careful with this!

it could be the beginning of a rampage.

vote it down.

there are elements in the U.S. that are trying to undermine the U.S. Constitution.

stop the commie-socialist agendas while we still have time!

YES, its a commie cloaked agenda.

In relation to the question being asked, it really sounds like a pre-emptive strike to prevent sharia law having a greater impact on the courts, so I suspect the originator wants it to voted down.

In relation to the rape case, although I have not read the case mentioned, it may not be as straightforward as a court accepting sharia law. In most jurisdictions, a defence against rape is to establish that the defendant genuinely believed that the victim gave their consent. The defendant may have argued that, as he lived his life according to sharia law, he genuinely believed that the wife is considered to always and irrevocably give her consent to her husband. So, did the court "accept sharia law", or did the court "accept sharia law as evidence of why the defendant had a genuine belief"?

I use the words "genuine belief" here but the law in question probably uses different language.

Originally posted by Intelearthling
reply to post by Montana

 

"Thou shalt not kill" and Thou shalt not steal" are Judaic law and observed by Christians through the Ten Commandments.

Should we strike down existing laws concerning these two offenses to conform with the Constitution?

This Islamic ruling will allow Muslim men to rape their wives without any consequences. If this law passes, I'll bet they'll be a lot of converts by low-life Americans that don't even have a religion.

If its ever allowed to use Sharia Law as a basis for considering a crime, we are screwed. The floodgates this will open up will be massive, with no stop to the asshatery that will come from it.

* - Mormons who was to marry more than one wife comes to mind

As far as the thou shall not kill / murder - To me this is a no brainer, because even those people who are atheist agree that killing / murder is bad. Its irrelevant that thou shall not murder / kill is in religious doctrine, and in no way compares to allowing Sharia Law.

Not killing people = Good
Raping your wife = Bad

If she were in a different country, its entirely possible she could be lashed or sent to Prison for bringing this topic up. By all means lets allow a set of laws where a husband can claim his wife is an adulteress, and be believed with nothing more than him saying it.

This judge needs to be educated on what his responsibility is.

Originally posted by EvillerBob
In relation to the question being asked, it really sounds like a pre-emptive strike to prevent sharia law having a greater impact on the courts, so I suspect the originator wants it to voted down.

In relation to the rape case, although I have not read the case mentioned, it may not be as straightforward as a court accepting sharia law. In most jurisdictions, a defence against rape is to establish that the defendant genuinely believed that the victim gave their consent. The defendant may have argued that, as he lived his life according to sharia law, he genuinely believed that the wife is considered to always and irrevocably give her consent to her husband. So, did the court "accept sharia law", or did the court "accept sharia law as evidence of why the defendant had a genuine belief"?

I use the words "genuine belief" here but the law in question probably uses different language.

No means just that, No.

Recently a leading Islamic Cleric in England came out stating that as the wife, its her responsibility to essentially give it up whenever he wants it. He went so far to say that rape is allowable in these cases, which in my opinion is BS.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
No means just that, No.

Recently a leading Islamic Cleric in England came out stating that as the wife, its her responsibility to essentially give it up whenever he wants it. He went so far to say that rape is allowable in these cases, which in my opinion is BS.

I think this has been discussed in greater detail elsewhere in the last month, but the issue is that in many countries and cultures (including Europe and US until very, very recently). a husband was always considered to have the consent of his wife and so could not be charged with rape. This is very wrong, I doubt many people would think otherwise, but just remember this before you point fingers at sharia law in this instance - your own jurisdiction has quite possibly had the same law in place within your lifetime. I think this post gives a few more references.

I really suspect the court cased originally discussed wasn't about accepting sharia law but accepting it as evidence as to why a belief was held. I suppose I should read it before commenting further, but it's not really the ATS way to make comments based on solid fact when I can make wide and spurious assumptions instead

reply to post by EvillerBob


Yeah I checked that before I answered. The state I reside in does not allow a husband to rape his wife. My concern about Sharia Law is the fact its religious, with some very brutal punishments, not using innocent until proven guilty, etc etc. If that's what some people want to use, that's fine, being there are many many countries who would allow it, and they are more than welcome to head there.

To me its goes beyond just a religion, or just a set of rules etc. I have issues when a religion is placed above our laws. I have issues when our laws are ignored while being replaced with religious doctrine (in this case).

I think its a slippery slope, and I do not think we would survive the impact at the bottom.

reply to post by Montana


Maybe you misunderstood me. Do not kill and do not steal are based on religious convictions pre-dating the Bible.

While many people have the conscience that murder is wrong, the goverment still allows the killing of the unborn. This is going against what people want yet the goverment allows it. Not all of them, but a majority.

The explanation of secular and religious laws has contradictions. If people vote in Sharia law, then that would be going against what the Constitution is all about. If we prosecute murderers and thieves, then that also goes against the Constitution of separation of state and religion, although most people would agree to prosecute these two.

Myself, I believe murder to be bad. Killing is not when it is justifiable. Stealing? It's all around bad but the government does it so they are being hypoctrites whent ey prosecute thieves.

Having read the article, know of the case in New Jersey and read the actual state question, there are comments and questions to be asked.
The case in New Jersey, even though it was struck down by a higher court, brought forth a dangerous precedent in the realm of the courts. In that case, as was reported, dealt with a woman being raped by her husband, as was his right under Sharia law and the court upheld his right, and later the verdict was over turned. The reasoning the court used was based off of international law, and the laws of another country to determine who was right and wrong in that case.
Even though that case was overturned, it put forth the idea in many peoples minds that a judge was willing to put forth international law over that of the State and Federal law of the United States of America. Now even though this may not be the state where you live, it does however, put forth a dangerous precedent as the decisions that are put forth in one court case often affects how others that are similar to it, are ruled on, and is often used as evidence by lawyers to show that they have the more valid argument.
After reading the actual law and the arguments, what can be stated, this is not about religion, nor constraining a religion. Rather it comes down to constraining the courts at the local level to use only the State and Federal laws when deciding a case, not to consider international and Sharia law in said cases.
It gives the appearance of being anti Islamic, as it specifically mentions Sharia law in the ballot measure, and that is what has people up at arms.
The question would have to be asked, would it have made a difference on the ballot and the question if it was asked that the courts not consider religious law, instead of Sharia law? The changing of a few words would not have been so objectionable, and been better for the courts, especially when dealing with people of differing religious beliefs that are in the country today.
The arguments on both sides done by the professionals are very much flawed, as the side for the measure, done by ACT is a bit inflammatory and directly attacks those that would find Sharia law to be a guiding force in their lives, and the other side, Mohamed Boudhhir, puts forth the argument that Muslims in this country are a separate people and the rest of us should not be concerned about them.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


*!

Well put. But the thing about this is it should never be put on a ballot considering religious freedom and constitutional law are separated.

And the thing about international law? All I can say is WTF? Should we disolve all borders, speak one official language, have one religion (or ban it all together) and observed only one government?

The mind set of TPTB can be described in three words: All fouled up. And I'm being nice about it.