by Steve Fair
International law was established by the United Nations in 1945. The International Court of Justice or the World Court is composed of fifteen judges elected by the UN Security Council. Originally established to rule in disputes between member nations, the U.S. judical system has increasedly used World Court legal precedence in rulings, often in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Another rule of law that is gaining acceptance across the globe is Sharia law. What is Sharia law? The proposed amendment would require courts to “uphold and adhere to the law” as provided in the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Code and federal regulations, Oklahoma Statutes and rules, and established common law. State Question 755 would prohibit all Oklahoma courts from considering the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, including in cases of first impression.Sharia( "way" or "path") is the sacred law of Islam. Muslims believe all Sharia is derived from two primary sources- the Qur’an and the Sunnah. The Sunnah means habits or practice. The Muslim usage refers to the sayings and living habits of Muhammad, the last prophet of Islam. Sharia also includes the consensus of Islamic imams.
On Sept. 14, 2008, both The Times and The Telegraph reported that the British government had sanctioned Sharia courts to rule on Muslim civil cases in that country. The decision sparked widespread controversy among British citizens. Today, there are as many as 85 Sharia courts in Great Britain, but not all those carry the force of British law.On Sept. 14, 2008, both The Times and The Telegraph reported that the British government had sanctioned Sharia courts to rule on Muslim civil cases in that country. The decision sparked widespread controversy among British citizens. Today, there are as many as 85 Sharia courts in Great Britain, but not all those carry the force of British law. A couple of years ago in Great Britian the government santioned Sharia courts to rule on Muslim civil cases in the mother country. Since that time eighty five Sharia courts have been established in England.
Representative Duncan says, “Oklahomans should not have to worry that their rights could be undermined by foreign court rulings in countries that do not have our respect for individual liberty and justice for all. Our nation’s laws were developed through a democratic process and should not be negated by an irresponsible judge’s haphazard reliance on foreign rulings developed in autocratic societies. Oklahoma court decisions should be based on the U.S. Constitution, Oklahoma Constitution, and our state and national laws – period.”
“Sharia law coming to the United States. is a scary concept,” Sykes said. “Hopefully the passage of this constitutional amendment will prevent it in Oklahoma.”
While the legislature overwhelmingly passed the Joint Resolution to put the issue on the ballot, the state question is not without detractors. It has received national attention and one of the vocal critics has been CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations). In the Muslim publication Illume June 15th edition, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, said the Oklahoma amendment is an example of anti-Islamic rhetoric and “Nazi-like” behavior.
In an interview with The Edmond Sun, Hooper said the measure(SQ 755) was based on misconceptions of Sharia law and could have unintended consequences. He said the proposed constitutional amendment could impact Muslims who want to pray in the workplace, which would create future legal challenges and expense for the state.
CAIR is a controversial group. Last November, Senator Tom Coburn along with four Congressmen wrote the IRS and asked that CAIR be investigated for excessive lobbying and for failing to register as a lobbying organization. CAIR reportedly has leaders who have past ties to Hamas- a terrorist organization. One of those leaders, Omar Ahmad, reportedly said Islam would some day dominate America. Establishing Islamic courts in the U.S. using Sharia law would be a logical first step.
Take for example what happened in New Jersey. A judge and former State Senator ruled that a woman who was raped by her husband could not get a protective order against him because his religious convictions overrode the statues of New Jersey. The woman's lawyer, Jennifer Donnelly of New Jersey Legal Services, told FoxNews.com the ruling should add to the case for a proposed Oklahoma law, which would ban judges from considering "international law or Shariah Law" in their rulings. "Those who don't want the bill to pass say, 'there's really no need for it because why would a judge walk down that road of religion?'" Donnelly said. "Clearly here, this judge did walk down that road. He may not have said 'Shariah law.' But I think it's indicative that, in trying to be respectful of religion, judges venture into a very slippery slope."
Duncan and Sykes should be commended for getting in front of this issue. Granted Oklahoma is not New Jersey, but this state question amends the constitution to insure activist judges stick to our ‘rule of law’ and not some global, international law as precedence.