US State voted no to Sharia, Muslim group sue voter decision

I was surprised by this news, and apparently one of my friends there is extremely outraged by this.

Oklahoma is one of the 50 states in the USA, in conjunction with the mid-term US election, the state of Oklahoma tabled out 11 State Questions (aka State referendum) for its voters to vote on.

One of them is State Question 755. This measure amended the Oklahoma Constitution and require Oklahoma courts to rely solely on US federal and state law when deciding cases. In other word, courts in Oklahoma only follow the justice laws of the United States of America, it forbids state courts from using international law or using Sharia Law as reference in all cases.
70% of Oklahoma voters voted ‘Yes’ hence the measure is scheduled to be put into practice.
The group, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) is angered by this. They want Sharia laws to be allowed in American courts. CAIR activist in Oklahoma City, Muneer Awad, filed suit last week, challenging the democratic decision of those 70% Oklahoma citizens and attempt to prevent its implementation, citing the ‘freedom to exercise religion’.
CAIR activists
To appease them, Oklahoma City federal Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a temporary restraining order preventing the state Election Board from certifying State Question 755.

This infuriated Oklahoma residents, who see the Muslim group trying to usurp and invalidate their votes. Oklahoma threatens to overwhelmingly vote in conservative Republicans and finish Obama in next election if such issue fails to reach a satisfying conclusion. Some challenged Muslim countries to use other religion laws as reference in their courts.

In response to CAIR activists, the people of Oklahoma
Oklahoma protest 1
Oklahoma protest 2
Oklahoma protest 3

It only applies to Muslims so…

real idiot…

oh sure… let religions come in and merge with the judicial.

if that is so, this is also a recognized faith in america, shall we let them practice their ‘pentagonal satanist’ laws in courts? its also a form of ‘freedom to exercise religion’ right?

oh sure… let religions come in and merge with the judicial.

if that is so, this is also a recognized faith in america, shall we let them practice their ‘pentagonal satanist’ laws in courts? its also a form of ‘freedom to exercise religion’ right?[/quote]

Hey really it applies to muslim only…

The Satanist are of the devil. This one is not tolerable…


Hey really it applies to muslim only…

The Satanist are of the devil. This one is not tolerable…[/quote]

arguments not valid, it is a recognized faith in america. ‘freedom to exercise religion’, why not tolerable?

I thought the FBI always raid them when they burn Cross?

will a legally-registered company in your country get raided if it displays giant communist or satanist symbol on its building?

from the news screenshot posted above, it was mentioned “federal judge to hear argument” so, well… let them be. us is more mature than us to handle such a healthy debate. compared to us here.
there must be a reason for the federal judge willing

federal judge did it on consideration for debate of ‘freedom to exercise religion’

it must be opposed, once allowed all other religion and the laws will move in too. in the US, laws have validated the legal status of wicca (or what u usually call a neopagan witchcraft religion)

what if a wiccan has dispute with a muslim? a satanist with a christian? a hindu with a jewish? each use their religious laws as reference in court, how would a judge decide, so not to offend any of both religions?

implementation is quite flexible really… reading at this… its nothing new

An unusual secular-state example appears, at first observation, a Sharia arbitration court being established in Ontario, Canada. That province’s 1991 arbitration court law allows disputes to be settled in alternative courts to avoid backing up the court system. The court would handle disputes between Muslim complainants. Its critics fear that the misogyny inherent in Sharia could end up influencing the Canadian justice system, but its proponents say those who do not wish to go by the court’s rulings are not forced to attend it. Moreover, these sharia courts in Canada are only orthodox in a limited way as they respect the priority of canadian civil law. Anybody not satisfied with a ruling from the sharia court can in appeal with a civil court. As such, this sharia court is only a very pale version of sharia.
Like Jewish law and Christian canon law, Islamic law means different things to different people in different times and places. In the hands of moderates, religious law can be moderate, even liberal. In the hands of post-Englightenment readers of philosophy, religious law is relegated to ritual (as opposed to law in a civil sense), or even to just being history. In the hands of fundamentalists, it is legally binding on all people of the faith, and even on all people that come under their control. Islamic law to American Muslims in Dearborn, Boston, or Houston is a very different thing than Islamic law to religious Muslims in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gaza Strip, western China, Nigeria[7], Indonesia, or Pakistan. All of them are following Islamic law, yet it varies as much as individual Muslims vary.

source: … _of_Sharia

I believe you miss out something. If you need, I urge you to read the full Ontario Arbitration Act 1991 here: … -c-17.html

In 1991, Ontario was looking for ways to ease the burdens of a backlogged court system. So the province changed its Arbitration Act to allow “faith-based arbitration” a system where Muslims, Jews, Catholics and members of other faiths could use the guiding principles of their religions to settle family disputes such as divorce, custody and inheritances outside the court system.

Note the word ‘faith-based arbitration’ and ‘family disputes’ and only matters on family disputes, there is no Sharia word in it.

In 2005, the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice of Canada said it wanted to set up its own faith-based arbitration panels under the Arbitration Act, based on Shariah law.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty however, stated that he would not let his province become the first Western government to allow the use of Islamic law. “There will be no Shariah law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians,” McGuinty told The Canadian Press.

Muslim groups however, keep pressing for Sharia court, in the end the Ministry of the Attorney General Michael Bryant to put an end to all faith based arbitration court (Christian, Jews, Muslim, etc) in Ontario.

In May 2005 Neighboring Canadian province of Quebec voted to ban the use of Sharia court.

Sharia law in American city of Dearborn? Then you must read this:

Dearborn Mayor: “No Sharia law in Dearborn!
Dearborn Muslim: “We never even discuss of setting Sharia law in the city. … w-here.php

Sharia law in Houston? Must be kidding… There is only a Sharia academy in Houston where Muslims can learn about Sharia, you can find them here:

It is only somewhat a religious academy, to it is Sharia law of Houston??

Sharia law in Boston? Ha…hahaha

Out of respect for Muslim students, the education board in Boston voted to close school in Muslim holiday. This is not Sharia to me. … _holidays/

Oh another thing… they try to overturn the democratic votes of the majority, this is a dangerous precedent, a first time. If the majority of a state voted for a referendum or a certain party to form their state government, how would they feel if, their referendum can suddenly be voided or their state government suddenly fall in name of religion?

oh sure… let religions come in and merge with the judicial.

if that is so, this is also a recognized faith in america, shall we let them practice their ‘pentagonal satanist’ laws in courts? its also a form of ‘freedom to exercise religion’ right?[/quote]

My high priest

thanks for posting :wink:

see the guy with the message"Jesus will destroy the cross and follow the quran"

read the constitution please

“That the people have an equal, natural, and unalienable right freely and peaceably to exercise their religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others”

I the American doesn’t want Shariah Law to be applied in the state because of the war…
Terrorist…War zone when children where train as soldiers…

Maybe the Americans were like…Hell NO…
we dont want terrorist in our land!

I can’t help but noticed that all religious fanatics and extremists face looks like desperate losers to me!