Preempting sharia gives the soldiers of Allah and their useful idiots hissy fits:
Ban of Islamic Law in Oklahoma Renders a Quick Lawsuit
Opponents of the law see gaping constitutional problems with it. A lawsuit was filed Thursday in Oklahoma City federal court challenging the legality of the measure. Click here for the complaint, filed by the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); here for the news release on CAIR’s plans.
The plaintiff, CAIR executive director Muneer Awad, said the law violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, adding that it targets a particular religion. “Disfavoring Islam, or any religion, is a violation of the First Amendment,” Awad said. “Second, it renders all international treaties invalid in our courts.” (Wall Street Journal)
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, via JW:
In wake of anti-Sharia vote, Muslims in Oklahoma claim victim status
Continue reading Oklahoma Lawsuit: "can't we just have a tiny bit of sharia?'
