A federal court judge is slated to hear arguments today on an injunction blocking Oklahoma’s new constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of foreign systems of law in reaching legal decisions.
On November 2, Oklahoma voters passed a ballot initiative banning the use of Sharia and international law in Oklahoma courts by a whopping 70%. The new law explicitly reaffirms the supremacy of the federal and the Oklahoma state constitutions.
Just days after the vote, Muneer Awad, a member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), filed suit to block the law’s implementation, claiming that it violated his constitutional rights.
CAIR has long been identified as a Hamas-affiliated Muslim Brotherhood front group by legally uncontested documents entered into evidence in the Texas Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial— the largest terrorism-funding trial in U.S. history.
The sheer volume of terrorist groups implicated by the evidence—used in the successful prosecution of HLF in 2008—lent itself to the compilation of a list of co-conspirators subject to prosecution with the same evidence. CAIR is named there as an unindicted co-conspirator.
The Obama Justice Department has yet to bring any of the HLF co-conspirators to trial.
U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LeGrange issued a temporary injunction against the new Oklahoma law when CAIR filed suit. She is a Democrat and a former Oklahoma state senator appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton.
Oklahoma State Sen. Anthony Sykes, a Republican and co-author of the Sharia ban, told Fox News that the outgoing Oklahoma Attorney General, Drew Edmondson—a Democrat—had failed to respond to the CAIR lawsuit.
“The attorney general failed to file a response,” Sykes said. “I am afraid that this might get written in stone that shouldn’t be because the attorney general is leaving and a new one is coming in.”
State Rep. Rex Duncan, another Republican a co-sponsor of the Oklahoma law, told Fox that Awad lacks the standing to file suit.
“As far as we know, he flew into here from Georgia just to make the case,” Duncan said. “We don’t think he is an Oklahoma resident or plans to stay. We don’t think he had standing.”
Awad’s CAIR-backed lawsuit alleges the new law somehow violates the 1st Amendment.
Sharia forms Islamic legal, political, and military doctrine. Under Sharia, Allah is the lawgiver and the ummah—the nation of Islam—is merely the trustee exercising derivative rule-making power. Only Allah has law-making prerogative as the absolute arbiter of law and values. Every other law must be derived from Sharia law’s tenets.
Islam and democratic self-governance cannot coexist in harmony. The concept of man-made laws determined by consent of the governed is anathema to Islam.
Muslim students in America are taught that Islamic Sharia law is the supreme law of the land—in direct contravention of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution.
“What Islam is All About” is a seventh-grade Muslim textbook by Yahiya Emerick. It is sold in Islamic centers and bookstores nationwide and is used in Muslim schools in America to inform young minds.
“Muslims know that Allah is the supreme being in the universe[;] therefore, His laws and commandments must form the basis for all human affairs,” the American students are taught (p. 381).
“The basis of the legal and political system is the Shari’ah of Allah. Its main sources are the Qur’an and Sunnah. Muslims dream of establishing Islam in the world” (p. 377).
The distinct difference between Sharia law and religious laws such as Jewish Halakha or Catholic Canon law is that these religious doctrines do not seek to coerce non-believers into compliance.
As previously reported on HUMAN EVENTS, there are 85 separate Sharia courts in England in which non-Muslims are getting caught up in the system.
In the United States this past August, a New Jersey judge denied a restraining order to a Muslim woman after she had been repeatedly raped by her husband. Marital rape is permitted under Sharia law. (More on the severe tenets of Sharia law from a previous HUMAN EVENTS report.)
Seen as a preemptive strike against the draconian legal system creeping into Western courts crippled by political correctness, the Oklahoma ballot initiative reaffirmed the supremacy of Oklahoma state and U.S. federal law:
“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.”
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
That the supremacy of our system of laws needs reaffirming in New Jersey to protect a Muslim woman is a testament to the deterioration of America’s court system.
“We are humbled by this opportunity to show our fellow Oklahomans that Muslims are their neighbors and that we are committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution and promoting the benefits of a pluralistic society,” said Awad of his CAIR-backed lawsuit.
If Muslims in America reject the notion that Sharia should be or is the supreme law in America, and if CAIR’s commitment to the U.S. Constitution is sincere, what better way to declare allegiance to America than to support the Oklahoma law that reaffirms constitutional supremacy?