From Jihad Watch:
In wake of Oklahoma anti-Sharia vote, Muslims having a hard time getting their story straight
Asma Uddin argues here that the idea of Sharia coming to Oklahoma is absurd on its face, and so no anti-Sharia law is needed. But if that is true, then why is Hamas-linked CAIR bothering to go to the trouble and expense of suing to block the law? After all, a law against a non-existent threat may be silly, but if there is no need for the law in the first place, there is no need to sue to overturn it.
Also, note that Uddin speaks as if Oklahoma had outlawed Sharia as a matter of voluntary private arbitration. That is actually off the point, since the use of Sharia provisions in private arbitration doesn't constitute the use of a law other than American law to legislate for Americans, which is what the Oklahoma anti-Sharia measure is all about.
"Caliphate on the Range? The Shariah Precedent in American Courts," by Asma Uddin in the Huffington Post, November 6:
Judging by how Oklahoma voted in the recent election, one might conclude that despite its tiny Muslim population, Oklahoma was on the verge of becoming an Islamic caliphate in Middle America. The reality is of course far different. Oklahoma State Question 755, which passed, asked voters whether state courts should be forbidden "from considering or using Sharia Law." Similar legislation is being considered in Tennessee, and Louisiana recently became the first state to pass several bills banning international law from its courts. Although the Louisiana bills didn't mention shariah explicitly, they were apparently motivated at least in part by a similar distaste for Muslims and their religious law, and a desire to "protect" constitutional law. These constitutional law protectors appear, however, to be a little fuzzy on what constitutional law actually means, how it allows for various forms of religious arbitration and what the state can and cannot do to regulate religious freedoms.
In the discussion and debate surrounding Question 755, supporters in search of an example where the bogeyman shariah was permitted inside American courtrooms kept pointing to a New Jersey case where the court denied a restraining order to a woman who was sexually assaulted by her then-husband. The judge ruled that the husband did not have a "criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" her as the husband was merely under the impression that he was exercising his prerogative as a husband under Islamic law. What's rarely reported, however, is that the decision was promptly overturned on appeal because the application of shariah, or the "cultural defense," conflicted with civil law.
This example is noteworthy not just because the decision was overturned because it got the law wrong, or that it is the only one of its kind, but because it is an atypical example of how shariah has made an appearance in American courtrooms. The typical cases are far from frightening. For example, arbitration under shariah law is permitted in the U.S., just like arbitration according to Christian principles or Jewish religious tradition is permitted, or according to any other set of rules two contracting parties may agree to. Indeed, prominent Christian groups like PromiseKeepers have long required Christian arbitration clauses in their contracts with vendors. [...]
The role of civil courts in determining matters that individuals choose to regulate according to religious law is an intricate one that the courts have already clearly answered. But are these finer issues of the religion-state relationship of any significance to the backers of anti-shariah measures like State Question 755? Or is the effort a combination of both political advantage-seeking and fear of Muslims -- not to mention just pure silliness? Sadly, the notion of shariah, or Islam, "taking over" America in a manner somewhat akin to the Seed Pods from The Return of the Body Snatchers seems to be infecting segments of the national political discourse, despite its inherent absurdity.
Posted by Robert on November 6, 2010 8:34 AM
And, also from Jihad Watch:
In wake of anti-Sharia vote, Muslims in Oklahoma claim victim status
"The bottom line: Muslims increasingly feel unwelcome, unwanted and viewed by their neighbors as un-American." Well, there would be one easy way to take care of that problem: support the anti-Sharia initiative. They say that it's fantastical that anyone would think that they have any plans to impose Sharia anyway, so why not declare open and wholehearted allegiance to the principles of the U.S. Constitution that are in contradiction to Sharia, such as the freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality of rights of all people before the law -- instead of yet again claiming victim status?
"Oklahoma Muslims Unsure of Status After Shariah Referendum," by Omar Sacibey for Religion News Service, November 4:
(RNS) Born and raised in Oklahoma, Sarah Albahadily will wear her headscarf to a Brad Paisley concert and her cowboy boots to mosque. There are two things she says she never misses: Friday prayers and University of Oklahoma football games.
But after seven in 10 Oklahoma voters on Tuesday (Nov. 2) approved State Question 755, a constitutional amendment that prohibits courts from using Islamic law, known as shariah, Albahadily suddenly feels a little less at home in the Sooner State.
"It's disheartening. Even though it was expected, you still feel the blow," said Albahadily, 27, as she drove to the Mercy School, a K-12 Islamic school in Oklahoma City where she teaches science.
In many ways, State Question 755 will likely have little impact either in Oklahoma or elsewhere -- Muslims quickly point out they never lobbied for shariah law, and many wouldn't support its use anyway.
What really worries Muslims is the anti-Muslim fervor that fueled it. It's the same sentiment behind the aborted Quran bonfire in Florida and the opposition to an Islamic community center near Ground Zero. The bottom line: Muslims increasingly feel unwelcome, unwanted and viewed by their neighbors as un-American.
And if that sentiment can be legislated in one state, they say, it could be legislated in another.
Yet rather that retreating from public life, Oklahoma Muslims like Albahadily are vowing to increase their involvement in community affairs and raise their visibility, confident that when fellow citizens get to know them, their prejudices will dissolve.
Albahadily said she would put on a brave face for her teenage students.
"If they see me upset, they're not going to want to participate in civics or community life. But if I can be upbeat, and say, 'OK, we're going to stand firm,' they'll respond."
Less than 24 hours after the polls closed, Albahadily's mother was organizing local Muslims to meet newly elected lawmakers; local Muslim groups and the ACLU announced a bid to have the referendum declared unconstitutional.
There are an estimated 30,000 Muslims in Oklahoma, which has 3.7 million residents. They describe themselves as well-educated, prosperous and attracted to Oklahoma's friendliness, slow pace of life and safety.
The referendum was primarily authored by Republican state Rep. Rex Duncan, and sailed through the state's legislature. In 2007, Duncan made headlines when he refused a copy of a Quran given to lawmakers by the Governor's Ethnic American Advisory Council. On Tuesday, he won a bid for a county district attorney position.
Muslims say the referendum worsened anti-Muslim prejudice that was already enflamed by the Ground Zero controversy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and frequent visits from Islamophobic speakers like Brigitte Gabriel, hosted by local churches and conservative
organizations.
"It's really brought the Muslim-haters out," said Allison Moore, a Muslim activist in Tulsa.
Since the referendum was introduced in June, Moore and other Muslims said, mosques saw an increase in hate mail and threatening phone calls. Children walking home from a Muslim school in Tulsa were harassed by people in passing cars. Some Muslim women left their headscarves at home....
Studies show familiarity breeds solidarity and support, so Muslims say they need to be seen and known now more than ever. But Sheryl Siddiqui, a spokeswoman for the Edmond-based Islamic Council of Oklahoma, said there are limits to how much they can do.
"Muslims in Oklahoma do a phenomenal amount of outreach," she said. "It's not on us anymore. There are people out there who still believe Obama is a Muslim."...
Horror of horrors! How could anyone get that idea?
Posted by Robert on November 6, 2010 8:15 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment