Koranimals go apeshit over ban on sharia in Oklahoma


Iran screams “Death to America”  and “Down with Israel” on Anniversary of US Embassy Capture

But deep down they really, really want peace (with nukes)

Gateway Pundit: The Iranian regime held massive protests today against the “Great Satan” on the anniversary of the capture of the US Embassy in Tehran. Take a look at the pics, here…..

From the (Islamofascist)  Bunglawussi blog:

Sharia hysteria comes to Oklahoma: voters approve Sharia law ban

Oklahoma became the first U.S. state to ban the non-existent threat of Sharia law yesterday. Nearly 70 percent of voters there approved ballot initiative “Question 755” – or the “Save Our State” constitutional amendment – which bans Sharia from being considered in Oklahoma courts. The ballot states that Oklahoma courts must “rely on federal and state law when deciding cases” and forbids them from “considering or using international law” and “from considering or using Sharia Law.”

The measure’s sponsor, Republican state senator Rex Duncan, called the result a “preemptive strike” against local judges whom he thinks might be “legislating from the bench or using international law or Sharia law.”

Think Progress, 3 November 2010

See also Weblog of Dawud Walid, 3 November 2010

And “Law professor: ban on Sharia law ‘a mess'”, CNN, 3 November 2010

Update: See “Lawsuit expected Thursday challenging Shariah law vote”, Tulsa World, 3 November 2010

Oklahoma bans stonings, amputations for theft, death for apostates, Muslims cry ‘Islamophobia.'”

2 thoughts on “Koranimals go apeshit over ban on sharia in Oklahoma”

  1. More important:
    Oklahoma bans criminalisation of:
    – defamation of religion,
    – offending muslims and
    – touching the quoran with dirty ‘kufir’ hands,
    Oklahoma bans practice of:
    – marital rape,
    – polygamy,
    – pimping daughters and
    – female castration.

  2. The left does not get it: the uglier it is, the more they defend it:

    Does Sharia law allow a husband to rape his wife, even in America? A New Jersey trial judge thought so. In a recently overturned case, a “trial judge found as a fact that defendant committed conduct that constituted a sexual assault” but did not hold the defendant liable because the defendant believed he was exercising his rights over the victim. Fortunately, a New Jersey appellate court reversed the trial judge. But make no mistake about it: this is no isolated incident. We will see more cases here in the United States where others attempt to impose Sharia law, under the guise of First Amendment protections, as a defense against crimes and other civil violations.

    In S.D. v. M.J.R., the plaintiff, a Moroccan Muslim woman, lived with her Moroccan Muslim husband in New Jersey. She was repeatedly beaten and raped by her husband over the course of several weeks. While the plaintiff was being treated for her injuries at a hospital, a police detective interviewed her and took photographs of her injuries. Those photographs depicted injuries to plaintiff’s breasts, thighs and arm, bruised lips, eyes and right check. Further investigation established there were blood stains on the pillow and sheets of plaintiff’s bed.

    The wife sought a permanent restraining order, and a New Jersey trial judge held a hearing in order to decide whether to issue the order. Evidence at trial established, among other things, that the husband told his wife, “You must do whatever I tell you to do. I want to hurt your flesh” and “this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you.” The police detective testified about her findings, and some of the photographs were entered into evidence.

    The defendant’s Imam testified that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands and he refused to answer whether, under Islamic law, a husband must stop his sexual advances on his wife if she says “no.”

    The trial judge found that most of the criminal acts were indeed proved, but nonetheless denied the permanent retraining order. This judge held that the defendant could not be held responsible for the violent sexual assaults of his wife because he did not have the specific intent to sexually assault his wife, and because his actions were “consistent with his [religious] practices.” In other words, the judge refused to issue the permanent restraining order because under Sharia law, this Muslim husband had a “right” to rape his wife.

    Besides the fact that the ruling is wrong as a legal matter, and offensive beyond words, it goes to the heart of the controversy about the insidious spread of Sharia law—the goal of radical Islamic extremists.
    A “preemptive strike” against that nightmare seems a worthy matter to put before a state’s voters.


Comments are closed.