Muneer Awad: Sharia Law Ban is an Enduring Condemnation of Islam in Oklahoma

Muneer Awad, an Oklahoma Muslim and executive director of the state’s Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR) filed suit last week against Oklahoma’s recently approved ballot measure that bans Sharia law in the state. Mr. Awad says it is all about his “constitutional rights,” and a ban on international law and Sharia Law is “an enduring condemnation of Islam.”

Muneer Awad

More than 70 percent of Oklahomans passed State Question 755 which, through a State constitution amendment bans judges from making decisions based on international or Sharia law. After Awad’s lawsuit, a judge put a temporary restraining order on the law, and in a hearing on November 22nd extended the injunction, which expires November 29th.

Awad claims Islam is singled out for unfavorable treatment:

…noting that no other religion was mentioned in the ballot measure. He alleges it violates the First Amendment banning laws respecting religion.

U.S. states are not governed by their religion, so there is no ‘other’ religions to ban.

This man understands well that American’s have the right to worship as they please. They do not have the right to decide the type of law they will be judged under other than the American and State Court systems. U.S. states are not governed by their religion, and for a very good reason – Islam being the best example.

For those Muslim apologists, this from NewsRealBlog:

…while there may be differences between the implementation of Sharia law, it’s important to note that the more brutal versions are certainly acceptable in terms of the Sharia system. Whether homosexuals are executed, flogged, or imprisoned, for instance, does not mean that the respective interpretations these punishments arise from do not share a gross underlying injustice. Even the supposedly civilized Sharia experts at the U.K.’s Sharia Council admit that the Sharia punishments for rape and adultery are flogging and stoning. Conveniently, they don’t mention whether this is supposed to be extended to the man or the woman in the case of a rape, but they do say that because the punishment is so severe, the burden of proof for proving rape is correspondingly high.

We are a Democratic Republic. People are free in the U.S. Real Americans do not behead their daughters and wives for dating American men or refusing Muslim garb and get protection from Sharia Law. Real American women enjoy walking the streets in western dress, unaccompanied by a Muslim male. In America, women have the same rights as all American men. There is nothing equal under Sharia Law.

Banning Sharia Law in court in no way threatens Awad’s religious rights. He can worship as he pleases as long as he does not physically harm another person. Unfortunately, he is free to harm them mentally.

Awad says his will cannot be probated unless it is done in a Sharia court. If that’s the case, this man needs to leave Oklahoma and find himself some Shariah law – hopefully outside the bounds of the United States.

“We have certain unalienable rights, and those rights cannot be taken away from me by a political campaign.” About 20,000 and 30,000 Muslims live in Oklahoma, Awad estimated.

Awad’s real problem is that Oklahoman’s understand the absurdity of this argument. Sharia law is a religion and a government and they are one and the same. This is not about worshipping.  Awad’s attorney, Micheal Salem, says the law is an “evil that must be stamped out.” Funny that – many of us feel the same about Islam.

Ztruth has a page up that gives a lot of information about CAIR Oklahoma, and another quoting Awad’s claim that he is in this alone, financially and legally and Oklahoma CAIR is not involved. That is hard to believe. CAIR has it’s nose in everything. Their whole reason for being is to bring Sharia to the U.S. The fact is, we do not know the truth as Ztruth points out.
If Mr. Awad wants to see the denial of Sharia Law as an “enduring condemnation of Islam,” so be it.  Islam and Sharia Law distorts everything that doesn’t fit it’s need. Oklahoma’s do not want, or need Islamic Law, and the people have spoken.
  • Yes, indeed. It is a condemnation of Islam — a condemnation deserved.

    • AOW – agreed. Funny thing that Islam is the religion and the government, and so both are being condemned.

  • Ran

    Happy Thanksgiving Maggie!

    More on the joke commonly referred-to as “…the most Merciful, the most Compassionate…

    The mere existence of Liberty is an enduring condemnation of Submission. Lan astaslam.

    • That’s a great way to think about it Ran – the mere presence of Liberty is a condemnation of Islam and that’s exactly what Awad knows, and it is why he is fighting it.

  • My first reaction to the headline was, “Yeah, so? What of it?”

    We have laws in this country already. We do NOT need more “special laws” for “special sections” of people. (Quite enough of that already, thankyouverymuch.) Especially when said “special” group of people has an agenda.

    Funny… he wants Sharia law to trump existing Constitutional federal and state laws, BUT he quotes said Constitution when it suits his purposes.

    Sorry, sonny. You can’t have it both ways.

    Oh, and if his will TRULY cannot go to probate unless it’s a Sharia court, then he needs a better lawyer. But then, that goes without saying, right?

    • Kelly, Awad knows exactly what he’s doing. I suspect he thinks in his own way he if martyring himself (without dying) while fighting this battle for the men of his own ilk.

  • KS

    The US Constitution Supremacy Clause specifically states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”. State judges are bound by international law, which SQ755 states to be illegal. The fact of the matter is that SQ755 is illegal. Any legal scholar will tell you the same.

  • KS, from what you quote, where do you get that the Law of the Land means ALL the land in all the lands of the World require international law in American courts? If you are talking about treaties with other countries, we are bound by no more than those treaties, and we can dispense of them when Congress sees the need to do so.

    If you are saying that the Arizona law is illegal because the Nation is not bound to state law, Arizona took care to write their law to follow that of federal law.

  • Simply wish to say your article is as astonishing. The clarity for your post is just cool and that i can assume you are a professional on this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to snatch your RSS feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks one million and please keep up the enjoyable work.