Public Relations & Promotions
STRM Media-Select LLC
In a decision that could open a floodgate of Islamic legal precedence, and shows yet another example of pandering to a false-god, pedophiliac, murderous “religion”, the United States 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld a federal court injunction against the State of Oklahoma and the implementation of an overwhelmingly-approved Constitutional amendment that would have ban Shari’ah law from being used in Oklahoma legal decisions.
At the center of the dispute between the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a terrorist-supportive organization with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, HAMAS and Hezbollah (and who was an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist trial in the United States, the Holy Land foundation trial), and the State of Oklahoma is State Question 755, also known as the “Save Our State” measure, which was approved by 70% of voters in the 2010 elections. At its core, SQ755 prohibits Oklahoma judges from using or considering international law, customs, traditions or religion legal concepts inside courtrooms. This sparked a pathetic outcry of discrimination from Muneer Awad, a local representative for CAIR, who insisted it violated the Establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom.
While the Court admitted voter initiatives should normally be given great deference by the courts, they feared the initiative, if upheld could be applied selectively. In their 37-page ruling the Court commented that:
“[ballot supporters] do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Shari’ah Law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma.”
In continuing they wrote, “”the proposed amendment discriminates among religions,” said the judges. “The Oklahoma amendment specifically names the target of its discrimination. The only religious law mentioned in the amendment is Sharia law.”
So essentially, the 10th Circuit has PROHIBITED Oklahoma from being PROACTIVE in stopping the introduction of Shari’ah Law in state courts, while simultaneously endorsing a REACTIVE approach, which could cost millions in legal expenses when, not IF, an attempt to rule by Shari’ah law makes it into a courtroom. Equally important, the Court has thrown out the voice of the MAJORITY of Oklahomans in a country founded as a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and NOT a democracy, where ONE individual can silence the voice of the majority. This is a prime example of Islam’s LEGAL JIHAD, affirmed by activist judges. And of course, yet ANOTHER terrorist-sponsoring organization, the American Muslim Association of Oklahoma, called the rulings a victory for Islam. Saleem Quraishi, AMA president and head of the Islamic Center at the Grand Mosque of Oklahoma City estimated there were some 5,000 Muslims in the city, while a spokesperson for CAIR said they could not estimate how many Muslims lived in Oklahoma.
State Question 755 was initiated after an idiotic New Jersey judge refused to grant a Muslim woman a restraining order against her husband, who she claims repeatedly raped her. The judge ruled against her, reasoning that her husband was abiding by his Muslim beliefs regarding spousal duties. The decision was subsequently overruled by an appellate court, with intelligent reasoning. The Oklahoma measure was sponsored by Oklahoma State Reps. Rex Duncan and Anthony Sykes, both Republicans. Sykes said his concern was compounded by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s comments during her confirmation hearings in June 2010 that she would be willing to consider international law when hearing cases before the court.
“”The fact that Sharia law was even considered anywhere in the United States is enough for me” to sign on, Sykes told CNN last year. “It should scare anyone that any judge in America would consider using that as precedent.”
This ruling by the 10th Circuit is disturbing to say the least. On one hand, they affirmed that the legislation discriminated against a “religion,” while completely ignoring a history of rulings that confirmed a separation of church and state in the courts. Apparently Muslims want it both ways. They want to be considered a “religion” (which they are NOT) when its convenient to them, but then NOT a religion (which is more accurate) when it serves a legal purpose. So does this now mean that a MORMON may move to Oklahoma and marry two women? Or may a Muslim marry a 9-year-old girl because its a main component of their ideology?
Some 13 states have initiated similar statutes that prohibit the use of foreign or cult laws/customs since 2010. Most have been rejected by voters while many were stopped before making it to the ballot. What the 10th Circuit has done with the Oklahoma ruling is nothing less that provide Islam yet another crack into the wall of the Constitution.
This ruling is nothing less than another pathetic example of activist judges who pandered to a political base and refuse to stand up for what’s RIGHT and CONSTITUTIONAL, bowing instead through fear, intimidation and terror tactics. One thing is certain, as long as CAIR is involved in a legal dispute, you can guarantee allegations of discrimination, islamaphobia and hate-mongering will be levied against anyone strong enough to stand up to their primative, murderous, terror-supportive organization.