Conquer Club

A popular new law that bars Oklahoma courts from considering Islamic law, or Shariah, when deciding cases was put on hold Monday after a prominent Muslim in the state won a temporary restraining order in federal court.

Two state legislators were quick to blast the judge's ruling and the Oklahoma attorney general, who they said did not stand up to support the new law.

U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LeGrange ruled that the measure, which passed by a large margin in last Tuesday's elections, would be suspended until a hearing on Nov. 22, when she will listen to arguments on whether the court's temporary injunction should become permanent.

"Today's ruling is a reminder of the strength of our nation's legal system and the protections it grants to religious minorities," said Muneer Awad, executive director of Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Oklahoma, who filed the suit last Thursday, claiming the law violated his constitutional rights.

"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," Awad said.

Shariah is found in the Koran and is the basis of law in most Islamic countries, though its implementation varies widely. It has been used in Iran and Somalia, among other places, to condone harsh punishments like amputations and stoning.

Supporters of the Oklahoma ballot initiative, which passed with 70 percent of the vote, would not comment on the impact of the ruling. But state Sen. Anthony Sykes, who co-authored the measure, charged that the judge ruled as she did because the state’s attorney general, Drew Edmondson, failed to respond to the suit.

“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.”

Calls to Edmondson’s office were not returned.

Oklahoma state Rep. Rex Duncan, who co-sponsored the bill, said he hadn’t seen the judge's written ruling yet, but he was disappointed that “her words from the bench indicated she had completely embraced the plaintiff’s arguments.”

“They were pretty extraordinary statements from the judge,” he said.

Duncan and Sykes both said the state should have challenged whether Awad had the standing to bring the case.

“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.”

Duncan and others who pushed for the measure argued that the ban “will constitute a pre-emptive strike against Shariah law coming to Oklahoma." He said England has embraced 85 Shariah law courts and warned voters that "while Oklahoma is still able to defend itself against this sort of hideous invasion, we should do so."

Opponents argued that the measure was unnecessary because state judges have no reason to rely on Islamic law. Most of the state’s newspapers opposed the measure.

At an impromptu news conference following Monday's ruling, CAIR officials called on the sponsors of the ballot measure to repudiate hate messages they said have been received by Muslim institutions in Oklahoma following the law's passage.

Residents in Oklahoma thought they were voting to ban Sharia law last Tuesday but it turns out that the new constitutional amendment may also extend to the Ten Commandments.

The Oklahoma ballot measure orders judges not to consider Islamic or international law when deciding cases.

But Rick Tepker, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma School of Law believes the "Save Our State" constitutional amendment may have the unwanted side effect of preventing judges from referencing the Ten Commandments. Tepker called the measure "a mess."

"Many of us who understand the law are scratching our heads this morning, laughing so we don't cry," he told CNN. "I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn’t that a precept of another culture and another nation? The result of this is that judges aren’t going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin."

SultanOfSurreal wrote:the oklahoma law is the stupidest thing ever. american law ultimately derives from english common law and it's still used as precedent. not to mention that international law must be considered in cases involving other national entities. this applies to everything from criminal matters to commercial interests. it is literally impossible to have a working legal framework in this day and age that does not consider the global stage. this law is literally nothing short of insane.

SultanOfSurreal wrote:the oklahoma law is the stupidest thing ever. american law ultimately derives from english common law and it's still used as precedent. not to mention that international law must be considered in cases involving other national entities. this applies to everything from criminal matters to commercial interests. it is literally impossible to have a working legal framework in this day and age that does not consider the global stage. this law is literally nothing short of insane.

SultanOfSurreal wrote:the oklahoma law is the stupidest thing ever. american law ultimately derives from english common law and it's still used as precedent. not to mention that international law must be considered in cases involving other national entities. this applies to everything from criminal matters to commercial interests. it is literally impossible to have a working legal framework in this day and age that does not consider the global stage. this law is literally nothing short of insane.

HapSmo19 wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:the oklahoma law is the stupidest thing ever. american law ultimately derives from english common law and it's still used as precedent. not to mention that international law must be considered in cases involving other national entities. this applies to everything from criminal matters to commercial interests. it is literally impossible to have a working legal framework in this day and age that does not consider the global stage. this law is literally nothing short of insane.

Actually, YOU are the stupidest thing ever and nothing short of insane.

Night Strike wrote:
It's amazing how a simple law reaffirming the idea that Oklahoma courts must follow US law can be stopped by a single judge. How could this possibly be infringing upon religion? Or are Muslims exempt from following US laws in favor of Shariah Law?

bedub1 wrote:State courts follow state laws and federal laws. They don't follow laws of religious organizations.

notyou2 wrote:The question begs to be asked.....................................................................Nightstrike, are you a racist?

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, you have this exactly backwards.

The truth is that most courts DO honor religious laws/agreements in many cases whenever it does not conflict with US law. For example, the Torah, Roman Catholic and Protestant Doctrines, etc may be considered for some divorce cases. This would place Muslim law below other religions in that regard.

It could also potentially impact trade negotiations and deals in countries where other laws are applied.

Juan_Bottom wrote:WHOA WHOA WHOA WHAOAOaoOAOAaoaoaOAHAOAOahOAAAOaa

Oklahoma courts can consider Biblical Law when ruling, but not Islamic law. And Nightstrike is arguing that that is ok... or is he saying that all religious law should be thrown out?

Night Strike wrote:

notyou2 wrote:The question begs to be asked.....................................................................Nightstrike, are you a racist?

Since your definition of racist has the position that Shariah Law must not be present in American Law, then I will proudly claim to be a racist using your definitions.

PLAYER57832 wrote:No, you have this exactly backwards.

The truth is that most courts DO honor religious laws/agreements in many cases whenever it does not conflict with US law. For example, the Torah, Roman Catholic and Protestant Doctrines, etc may be considered for some divorce cases. This would place Muslim law below other religions in that regard.

It could also potentially impact trade negotiations and deals in countries where other laws are applied.

So do you want to find 3 other witnesses if your husband were to have an affair just so you could get a divorce from him (if you did not wish to reconcile with him)?

Night Strike wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:WHOA WHOA WHOA WHAOAOaoOAOAaoaoaOAHAOAOahOAAAOaa

Oklahoma courts can consider Biblical Law when ruling, but not Islamic law. And Nightstrike is arguing that that is ok... or is he saying that all religious law should be thrown out?

I actually said all laws that are not codified in the US should not be considered, but the Oklahoma constitutional amendment specifically included Shariah and International Laws.

SultanOfSurreal wrote:the oklahoma law is the stupidest thing ever. american law ultimately derives from english common law and it's still used as precedent. not to mention that international law must be considered in cases involving other national entities. this applies to everything from criminal matters to commercial interests. it is literally impossible to have a working legal framework in this day and age that does not consider the global stage. this law is literally nothing short of insane.

and then of course this: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/oklahoma-banned-ten-commandments-sharia-law/

Residents in Oklahoma thought they were voting to ban Sharia law last Tuesday but it turns out that the new constitutional amendment may also extend to the Ten Commandments.

The Oklahoma ballot measure orders judges not to consider Islamic or international law when deciding cases.

But Rick Tepker, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma School of Law believes the "Save Our State" constitutional amendment may have the unwanted side effect of preventing judges from referencing the Ten Commandments. Tepker called the measure "a mess."

"Many of us who understand the law are scratching our heads this morning, laughing so we don't cry," he told CNN. "I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn’t that a precept of another culture and another nation? The result of this is that judges aren’t going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin."

bedub1 wrote:To clarify, NO religious laws should be used in a US court of law, only US laws are valid.

bedub1 wrote:
So you ready for the point? Just because something is legal under Muslim law, doesn't mean it's legal in the US. Never will the US follow Muslim law and allow these above acts.

bedub1 wrote: But the guys committing them definitely want to see the US legal system adopt their laws.

bedub1 wrote: To clarify, NO religious laws should be used in a US court of law, only US laws are valid.

Metsfanmax wrote:Could someone please clarify for me (since I know nothing about the subject) - what exactly does it mean for a court to use any religious law? I think I understand PLAYER's example of divorces being based on religious doctrine, but are there other examples? There have to be if this law is causing so much uproar, I just don't know what they are.

Metsfanmax wrote:Could someone please clarify for me (since I know nothing about the subject) - what exactly does it mean for a court to use any religious law? I think I understand PLAYER's example of divorces being based on religious doctrine, but are there other examples? There have to be if this law is causing so much uproar, I just don't know what they are.

What The Law Would Do

"It's a ridiculous and offensive stereotype, an attempt to capitalize on the fears of people who don't know anything about Islam," says Awad. "We already have laws that prevent violence against women: You can't engage in a crime and consider it somehow related to your faith."

Constitutional scholars agree. They say that if a religious practice conflicts with American law, the courts will strike it down; the New Jersey appellate court's quick response in the case of marital abuse supports that principle.

Marc Stern, a First Amendment lawyer with the American Jewish Committee, says there's no way that fundamentalist Islamic law will be imported here.

"Stoning, cutting off of hands, people being forced to wear veils and the like are simply not going to happen with the assistance of the courts," Stern says.

So what would the new amendment do? Stern says it would favor other religious practices over Islamic ones. For example, Stern says, it is common for a court to accept a will, a prenuptial agreement or a contract based on religious law.

"This amendment seems to say the courts can take no notice of Shariah law," he says. "It doesn't say you can't take notice of canon or Jewish or any other form of religious law that imposes requirements on religious believers. That, alone, would seem to be grounds for throwing this out."

Looking Ahead

The amendment opens a Pandora's box of legal problems aside from the First Amendment issues, says Joseph Thai, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma's College of Law. It would bar courts in the state from recognizing all international law, including treaties and international business contracts that are often based on foreign law. He wonders, why would any foreign company do business with Oklahoma?

"I think this hurts Oklahoma’s economy because it chills international investment to the extent that international investors rely on international law to protect their contract rights," Thai says. "I think it also hurts Oklahoma more broadly because it makes Oklahoma seem like a less welcoming place for outsiders."

It's difficult to find anyone who believes Oklahoma's new law will survive. But that will be determined later. The next hearing — when the state government defends the measure — is scheduled for Nov. 22.

As I’ve argued before, I think courts should indeed generally enforce religiously inspired contracts, whether prompted by an Islamic marriage, a Jewish marriage, or other events, so long as the contracts expressly set forth obligations in terms that courts can enforce while applying neutral principles of contract interpretation law. Courts should also generally be open to enforcing arbitration agreements where the arbitrators are applying religious law, pursuant to the terms of a contract that calls for such law (though I’m not sure how U.S. law would treat such arbitrations if there is evidence that the tribunal may have applied sex-discriminatory or religion-discriminatory procedural rules).

I also think courts should be open to applying, say, Saudi law — which incorporates Islamic law — when the normal choice-of-law rules (where related to contracts, torts, family law, or what have you) call for the application of Saudi law, just as similar rules call for the application of Canadian law or Mexican law in other cases. If there is some public policy objection to a particular aspect of Saudi law, that aspect wouldn’t be enforced (just as speech-restrictive European law wouldn’t be enforced in defamation cases filed in U.S. court); but that is no reason to generally reject the application of Saudi law in other contexts. The courts wouldn’t be deciding what true Islam calls for, but just evaluating what legal rules are actually part of the Saudi justice system.

But I do think that there might be First Amendment problems when the court is itself being asked to determine what Islamic law calls for, just as there are such problems when a government agency is deciding what is kosher. (Check out this interesting case dealing with this as to a Hindu wedding.) I’m not sure about this; perhaps in contract cases the court could avoid unconstitutional decisions about what Islamic law really requires by instead asking what the parties likely contemplated. But in any event, I think this is where a court might be skating close to the constitutional edge.

jonesthecurl wrote:The Ten Commandments are not a part of the law in the U.S.