Lawsuit filed in Okla. against Islamic law ban

[TheViper]

OKLAHOMA CITY – An Oklahoma Muslim filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday to block a state constitutional amendment overwhelmingly approved by voters that would prohibit state courts from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.

The measure, which got 70 percent of the vote in Tuesday's election, was one of several on Oklahoma's ballot that critics said pandered to conservatives and would move the state further to the right.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City, seeks a temporary retraining order and injunction to block the election results from being certified by the state Election Board on Nov. 9. Among other things, the lawsuit alleges the ballot measure transforms Oklahoma's Constitution into "an enduring condemnation" of Islam by singling it out for special restrictions by barring Islamic law, also known as Sharia law.

"We have a handful of politicians who have pushed an amendment onto our state ballot and then conducted a well-planned and well-funded campaign of misinformation and fear," said Muneer Awad, who filed the suit and is executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. "We have certain unalienable rights, and those rights cannot be taken away from me by a political campaign." About 20,000 and 30,000 Muslims live in Oklahoma, Awad estimated.

Legal experts have also questioned the measure.

Joseph Thai, a professor at the University of Oklahoma's College of Law, said the ballot measure is "an answer in search of a problem." He said he knows of no other state that has approved similar measures.

"There is no plausible danger of international law or Sharia law overtaking the legal system," Thai said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. He said courts only consider international law when deciding issues involving a federal treaty, a business contract or a will that incorporates international law.

Thai said the ballot measure "raises thorny church-state problems as well" and could even affect a state judge's ability to consider the Ten Commandments.

"The Ten Commandments, of course, is international law. It did not originate in Oklahoma or the United States," Thai said.

The measure is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1. It's author, Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, said it was not intended to attack Muslims but to prevent activist judges from relying on international law or Islamic law when ruling on legal cases.

"The threat posed by activist judges is clear," Duncan said. "It shouldn't matter what the law in France or any other European country is."

Duncan described the measure as "a pre-emptive strike" in Oklahoma, where he said activist judges are not an imminent problem. But some judges elsewhere, including U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, believe courts should look to the law of other countries for guidance when deciding cases, he said.

Ginsburg told a meeting of international lawyers in Washington in July that American judges can learn from their foreign counterparts when seeking solutions to "trying questions."

"The only people who would be a victim of this are activist judges," said Duncan, who in 2007 rejected a Quran as a gift from a council created by Gov. Brad Henry, explaining that "most Oklahomans do not endorse the idea of killing innocent women and children in the name of ideology."

One Oklahoma resident said he voted for the measure on Tuesday because chaos might ensue if judges were permitted to rely on international or religious laws in their courts.

"Any private organization could come in and say the judge has to rule according to our rules and regulations and overrule state laws," Oklahoma City attorney Jerry Fent said. "How many religions could you have?"

But Laura Gorton, a college student from Oklahoma City, said she saw no need for the measure and voted against it.

"It's not an issue here," Gorton said. "It's almost like an attempt to make a jab at other cultures."

Among the 10 other questions on Tuesday's ballot were a measure that would make English the state's official language and another one the allows residents to "opt-out" of the new federal health care reform law. Both passed.

The questions are the product of a Republican-controlled Legislature, which circumvented Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry — a Democrat — to take them to the ballot. Critics say Republicans were trying to beef up voter turnout among certain conservative groups by appealing to biases on immigration, Islam and the reach of Washington in a state where President Barack Obama failed to win a single county in 2008.

Republicans have denied there is a conspiracy, saying that some of the measures are designed to protect citizens from the reach of the federal government.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_islamic_law_lawsuit

[Ari Ben-Canaan]

Good for Oklahoma!  Job well done for putting up a defense against imminent offense.  Clearly Oklahomans do not want their state to be run like New Jersey [let those critical of Oklahoma voters to redirect their criticism at New Jersey!]:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/sharia-in-new-jersey-muslim-husband-rapes-wife-judge-sees-no-sexual-assault-because-husbands-religio.html

Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex

"Muhammad said: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari 4.54.460).

He also said: "By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel's saddle" (Ibn Majah 1854).

And now a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife -- not because he didn't do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: "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."

Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time.

"Cultural Defense Accepted as to Nonconsensual Sex in New Jersey Trial Court, Rejected on Appeal," by Eugene Volokh in The Volokh Conspiracy, July 23 (thanks to CameoRed):

    From today's opinion in S.D. v. M.J.R. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.), a domestic restraining order case:

        The record reflects that plaintiff, S.D., and defendant, M.J.R., are citizens of Morocco and adherents to the Muslim faith. They were wed in Morocco in an arranged marriage on July 31, 2008, when plaintiff was seventeen years old. [FN1] The parties did not know each other prior to the marriage. On August 29, 2008, they came to New Jersey as the result of defendant's employment in this country as an accountant....

        [Long discussion of the wife's allegations of abuse, which included several instances of nonconsensual sex as well as other abuse, omitted for space reasons. -EV]

        Upon their return to the apartment, defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her

            this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.

        After having sex, defendant took plaintiff to a travel agency to buy a ticket for her return to Morocco. However the ticket was not purchased, and the couple returned to the apartment. Once there, defendant threatened divorce, but nonetheless again engaged in nonconsensual sex while plaintiff cried. Later that day, defendant and his mother took plaintiff to the home of the Imam and, in the presence of the Imam, his wife, and defendant's mother, defendant verbally divorced plaintiff....[...]

        While recognizing that defendant had engaged in sexual relations with plaintiff against her expressed wishes in November 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009, the judge did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven. He stated:

            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.

        After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant's advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff's contrary wishes.

        Having found acts of domestic violence consisting of assault and harassment to have occurred, the judge turned to the issue of whether a final restraining order should be entered. He found such an order unnecessary, vacated the temporary restraints previously entered in the matter and dismissed plaintiff's domestic violence action....

The appellate court reversed this absurd decision, saying:

    As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State's statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.

A close call. But no doubt more of this is to come.
Posted by Robert on July 24, 2010 6:20 AM | 142 Comments"

[TruthSpreader]

Good job, Oklahoma. I only hope the rest of the country as well as the rest of the world finally wakes up and realizes that Islam is evil.