“Unconstitutional” To Ban Islamic Law In U.S. Courts
Sign Up for Updates
A renowned Muslim rights group is suing to stop Oklahoma from implementing a voter-approved measure prohibiting state courts from considering Shariah law—the authoritarian doctrine that inspires Islamists and their jihadism—when ruling on cases.
The “anti-Islam” law forbidding judges from contemplating Islamic principles is unconstitutional, according to a federal lawsuit filed this week by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a national organization that serves as the U.S. front for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. On Tuesday
But CAIR claims the measure violates the First Amendment right to freedom of religion because it singles out Islam and is designed to stigmatize Muslims. Implementing it will infringe on the constitutional rights of ordinary Oklahomans in their daily lives, including the right to wear religious head scarves, choose Islamic marriage contracts or to be buried according to one’s religious beliefs, according to CAIR.
The politically-connected group further asserts that the Shariah ban was created to harm an “unpopular minority” and its goal is to “stigmatize Islam by establishing in the public’s mind that Islam is something foreign and to be feared.” It also transforms
Founded in 1994 by three Middle Eastern extremists (Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad and Rafeeq Jaber), CAIR has extensive links to foreign and domestic Islamists and was a co-conspirator in a federal terror-finance case involving another Hamas front group, Holy Land Foundation. Yet the group remains highly influential with offices throughout the U.S. and substantial power in
Its lawsuit conveniently fails to mention the well-documented threat of Islamic Shriah law as a non-violent way to destroy the United States. In fact, a few months ago a bipartisan group of highly accomplished military, terrorism and national security experts released an alarming report that refers to Shariah as the “preeminent totalitarian threat of our time.”