Ban on Shariah Law Blocked

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/08/ok ... d-respond/

I never get mad about the news but i am outraged by this!! !! !!

if Shariah Law is allowed in the usa i will be pissed!

it is brutal and suppresses women rights!

wake up America!
or our country and our freedoms will be lost!! !! !! !!

Oklahoma's ban on shariah law is like its ban on whaling. Neither of them ever actually happened in Oklahoma.

Its like they're a bunch of paranoids who are afraid "well what if this happens in the future" quick let's make a law. I'm all for preparing for the future, but Oklahoma isn't going to touch the ocean or get shariah law anytime soon or ever.

The 1st amendment already would ban shariah law anyways so the proposal is superfluous.

The link leads to a passwall.

But isn't making a law banning Sharia law in the USA like making a law banning making the official state language Sanscirt? Is anyone actually trying to implement Sharia law in the USA?

It's already banned by separation of church and state, so an explicit ban would be redundant.

Read the first paragraph again. The ban was on consideration of Shariah Law 'when deciding cases'. It is possible that a person may insist on Shariah Law being considered with regard to some case or other where the law differs. I do agree that the separation of church and state in America should cover it though.

[quote="just-me"]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/08/oklahomas-ban-shariah-law-blocked-critics-say-attorney-general-failed-respond/

I never get mad about the news but i am outraged by this!! !! !!

if Shariah Law is allowed in the usa i will be pissed!

it is brutal and suppresses women rights!

wake up America!
or our country and our freedoms will be lost!! !! !! !![/quote

Shariah law is binding only on Muslims and then only if they agree to be bound by it. Shariah law has no general standing in U.S. jurisprudence either at the State or the Federal level.

Orthodox Jews have been using Rabbinical Courts for settling torts for over a hundred years. It is legally a kind of arbitration and it cannot be forced on parties unwilling to abide by it. For that the general law if effective. We are bound under general law whether we want to be or not.

ruveyn

You should distinguish between private and public law.

Public law is mandatory and universal. It is created by legislation and jurisprudence, and all people within a territory are obliged to observe it (although some limited classes of people are immune from its enforcement). Private law exists to govern the relationships between private individuals. It is created by those individuals and has no particular force or effect outside of the relationship of those people.

Where public law and private law are in conflict, public law prevails. So, if two people want to use Sharia to resolve a contractual dispute, why shouldn't they?

women are often pressured by there family and community to abide by it. if it were truly there choice i doubt any of them would want it. but they often have to face that or be disowned by there family. so they dont really have a choice.

I agree with this sediment. This was a law, implemented during an election year and all the fervor that that implies. This is a law in search of a problem.

You really need to do some research into Sharia Law...

Also this was on the ballot for the Oklahoma state Constitution, not merely a law enacted by legislature.

Elements of Shariah Law that violate our laws are already banned. We are allowed to practice our religions as long as we still obey the law. We cannot legally practice parts of our religions that require us to break the law. The problem has already been solved. What matters now is that we stay true to this philosophy and don't make any exceptions for Shariah Law in the future.

You're assuming Judges will actually follow existing law. (Btw, a law can be found unconstitutional due to the 1st amendment)

If memory serves me right, it was a declaration that all laws originating outside the US do not apply to Oklahoma, not a specific ban on Shariah only. To single out one religion's laws would have made it too easy for the ACLU to attack. So it would also apply, for example, if the UN tries to pass laws and impose them on the US. Ironically, this would also ban the 10 Commandments since those originated in the Middle East.

One possible legal problem here is that the US Constitution allows the president to make treaties, and these are law. All international treaties have parties outside the US and so could be construed as originating partly outside the US, and thus the Oklahoma law would be unconstitutional by that argument. I don't agree with that argument, but I could see a lawyer making that point.

Let's say you're a Muslim and you are in hospital or in some institution and you ask for Halal food. The hospital would be banned from serving you Halal because this comes from Sharia. This is why this idiotic referendum proposition had to be shot down. There's this other fear that courts have been considering foreign laws when making decisions and thought maybe they'll cite Sharia law. If they do then they should be thrilled, it would probably cause conservative legal decisions! Idiots!

This sort of thing runs headlong into the question of Conflicts of Laws. There is a vast corpus of law dealing with which law applies to certain fact situations. The legal concept of "domicile," (which is very different from physical presence or residence) governs many aspects of an individual's legal standing:

Marriage: The formalities of marriage are governed by the lex loci celebrationis (the law of the place where the marriage is celebrated), but the capacity of the two parties to marry (age, parental consent, bars to consanguinity, etc.) is govered by their respective lex domicilis.

Divorce: An order of divorce issued by a court is valid at common law only if it is a court of the jurisdiction in which one of the parties to the marriage is domiciled. (In the United States this was largely erased by, "full faith and credit," which paved the way for the quickie Vegas marriage and divorce).

Estates: A will in respect of personal property is governed by the lex domicilis of the testator, but in respect of real property it is governed by the lex loci, the law of the place where that property is situated.

When a person holding an Ontario driving license is operating a vehicle rented, registered and insured in Québec (which is a civil law jurisdiction with a no-fault insurance system), and has a collision in Oklahoma with a vehicle registered and insured in Mexico driven by a person with a Mexican driving license, what is the governing law with respect to settling the competing claims?

Extraterritoriality is a fact of life in the modern world, and no jurisdiction can insulate itself from it, try as it might.

The sharia law in question did not refer to women's rights it referred to enforcement of business contracts with a foreign entity in a moslem country where Sharia law is enforced