US Government Forces Oklahoma To Overturn Anti-Sharia Bill, And To Pay $303,333 To Muslims

By Theodore Shoebat

The US government has forced the state of Oklahoma to overturn its anti-Sharia bill, after a Muslim man named Muneer Awad sued the state for supposed violations against “freedom of religion.”

CAIR also played a role in subverting the bill. Adam Soltani of CAIR said:

Sharia is the moral code of conduct for Muslims, and that includes certain aspects of laws, like marital laws, divorce, inheritance, wills…it encompasses part of that, but it’s also the moral code of conduct

The state of Oklahoma must now pay $303,333 to Awad for legal fees, costs and nontaxable expenses. The money is going into the hands of Muslims because the lawsuit was done by CAIR, a Muslim jihadist organization of Islamic lawyers. Awad himself is a lawyer and the executive director for CAIR. The state of Oklahoma is paying money right into the pockets of Muslims. The Muslim heretic Awad boasted the victory:

This was just politicians optimistically looking for an issue… Look what happened. Not only did the state question get struck down, but they’ll have to pay attorney fees and interest over three years.

Rep. Clark Jolley, R-Edmond, said that paying the fine “is an obligation of the state…I think that’s a disagreement with us and the courts… We passed that as a Legislature. We lost the lawsuit.

According to Jordan Sekulow, the bill never infringed on the Islamic religion, but was placed to prevent international codes of law from entering the government:

At its core, the amendment has nothing to do with infringing on a Muslim’s right to practice Islam or religious freedom generally. This amendment is about “judicial authority,” and is not a “demonization” of Islam.

70% of Oklahomans wanted the anti-Sharia bill, and trusted that the state would maintain it, but this decision shows that the government cannot be trusted, and that only a revolutionary measure though the populace, and not the total reliance on the state, will actually end the Muslim takeover the country.

This Islamic victory only shows one thing: American society is enabling the Muslims to advance their agenda. Unlimited freedom of religion will only lead to limits on Christianity. As I have written in my article, Religious Liberty Leads To Tyranny:

All of civilization, came as a result of religious intolerance

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT OUR AGAINST ISLAM, PLEASE CLICK HERE TO GET OUR NEW 2-DISK DVD SPECIAL ON CHRISTIAN MILITANCY

print

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Immadiyah

    This is outrageous! Why is paying the fine the obligation of the state? Shouldn’t the state appeal the decision? Where’s the public outcry from the Americans?

    • AmericanLass

      Sheeple are sleeping.

  • Carolyn Schuster

    Really? how about an appeal.

  • MilitaryVeteran

    Oklahomans will weigh in on this issue and take it to the mat. The Muslim threat will be confronted in the states that are not captured by their urban populations. Most urban populations don’t give a S&%# about America or the Constitution – at their own peril. This was true in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Islam is the enemy for the Western World and to ignore it is to endanger the nation. We also need to recognize the Muslims are using our judicial system against us. Stupid liberal judges refuse to see this reality. Islam should be viewed as a cult and ideology in the eyes of the law, not a religion. To preserve the Constitution, we need to impeach the left-wing judges. States should declare the 10th Amendment option and refuse federal bench orders.

    • Fr Christopher P. Kelley, DD

      Yes indeed, an ALIEN cult representing a Foreign Power, seeking the resuscitation of the Imperial Caliphate.

      • chewinmule

        One only has to look to Canadian law criminalizing any public reference to scripture involving God’s word re homosexuality.

    • Kansas Bright

      And remove the judges who went against their duty and broke their oath.

  • richinnameonly

    Another step in tolerance of Islam along with the many instances found of marginalizing Christianity and hating Judaism. Religious freedom has it’s dire consequences when the people are fooled.

  • Kansas Bright

    “Sharia is the moral code of conduct for Muslims, and that includes
    certain aspects of laws, like marital laws, divorce, inheritance,
    wills…it encompasses part of that, but it’s also the moral code of
    conduct.”

    That is fine, but according to OUR legitimate government, Muslims have the right to practice their religion, but they do NOT have the right to use it as “law” in our courts, etc. They must follow our laws even if it conflicts with their religion. They NOT allowed to break OUR laws.

    If The state of Oklahoma pays $303,333 then the citizens of that state must fire all those involved.

    NO judge are NOT in that position for life. They are ALLOWED to occupy that position as long as they practice “Good Behaviour” in the courts. “Good Behaviour” is doing their duty as the Constitution of the United States assigned it – where they get their authority from – and follow their state Constitution if it applies, and they are REQUIRED to keep the Oath(s) to support and defend the US Constitution or no longer meet the requirements of the position they occupy.

    US Constitution, Article III, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    James Madison, Federalist 39: “According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behaviour.”

    Tucker’s Blackstone, Volume I, Chapter 1: “But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must
    decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according
    to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.
    Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his oath and the law. For herein there is nothing repugnant to natural justice;…”

    Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

    John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802: “The
    particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

    The courts were NOT given the power to decide what Constitution means, to “interpret” it. They were given the power and duty to decide if the case in question follows the US Constitution, if it is in Pursuance thereof it. The US Constitution defines the standard that all laws must meet, that they MUST be in Pursuance thereof it to be lawful here in the USA.

    The judicial was set to be totally separate from, and not under the power of, either the executive branch or the legislative branch. They were to be an independent branch that was taxed with the duty of making sure that the other two branches, plus the states, actions were “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution. They were to
    make sure that laws did not encroach on the people’s unalienable natural rights in any way. The courts were not given the power to make the decisions of guilt or
    innocence – that power is left with the people.

    Many have forgotten that the courts were set up to be directly under the influence of the people, such as jurors. “We the People” are directly the decision-makers of the guilt or innocence of our neighbors, and of the laws presented to us as jurors.
    We are also the final decision makers on if judges are using “Good Behaviour” in the courtrooms or not; not the executive or legislative branches; nor is the judicial to decide it’s guilt or innocence itself. “We the people” are the final arbitrator of the decision if the judges within OUR courtrooms are using “Good Behaviour”.

    In the courtrooms as a jury, the people are the ones who lawfully decide a case brought against a person. More importantly they are to decide if the law is a good law or not as a jury. A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented and/or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. Basically the jurors are the judges of both law and fact.

    Early in US history, judges informed jurors of their nullification right to decide if a law was a “good” law or one that must be dropped. The first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors:

    “You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge both the facts and law.”

    And “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

    John Adams: “It is not only his [the juror’s] right, but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though
    in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

    “though in direct opposition to the direction of the court” is “We the people” deciding the court, prosecutors, lawmakers were all wrong. So why would anyone think that the final decisions over a judge using “Good Behaviour” would be left to anyone else?

    The state representatives involved at all levels can always be removed.

    • whitefalcon74

      Don’t define it as a religion it is a cult don’t play into those words ever!

  • whitefalcon74

    disgusting that 30% wanted it islam cancer is spreading more and more.with ovomit in the white house woman will be wearing burkas soon!

  • jaxholley

    They need to appeal. But they also need to rewrite the law. The constitution of the United States and the State of Oklahoma and the laws of Oklahoma shall be the only laws used when decisions are made concerning the citizens of Oklahoma.

  • James Johnson

    Every American (especially judges like this) that stands for “tolerance” of ALL religions needs to understand religious freedom can never supersede fundamental constitutional freedom (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). If we allow that we can allow anything–including infiltration of those seeking our decimation–all under the guise of “religious freedom”.

    The Constitution can only offer protection for religions that are accordant with the fundamental rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) of the Constitution otherwise the Constitution could actually offer protection to a religion that sets itself up to destroy the Constitution. That would be self-defeating. It’s absurd to think that our founders would frame our Constitution, in all its genius, in such a self-defeating way.

    So the argument goes something like this:

    P1: The Constitution cannot be self-defeating (i.e. if The Constitution was self-defeating, we would have no objective and legitimate point of reference for our Civil rights).

    P2: It would be nonsensical and self-defeating for the Constitution to offer protection to religions that could/would destroy the Constitution.

    P3: The Constitution is to protect religious freedom for religions that are compatible with the Constitution; more specifically, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. After all, these are fundamental rights that cannot be taken away by any religion.

    P4: If any so called “religion” does not respect the fundamental rights outlined in our Constitution then that religion does not get the protection of that Constitution. In other words, the religion has delegitimized itself from the Constitution and any rights that come from the Constitution.

    P5: Islam does not respect the fundamental rights outlined in our Constitution.

    Conclusion: Therefore, Islam has delegitimized itself from the Constitution and any rights that come from the Constitution.

  • detroitheat

    When in hell are these states, going to tell the Federal government to go get fucked up the ass…..

  • SupportMcCarthyism

    The butt kissing Obama does for his muslim brotherhood. Yet, liberals actually think he’s a Christian. What a joke!

  • Jeremy Tri

    A court ruling is the fault of Obama? Not persecuting Muslims does not result in the persecution of Christians. Cute how you’re all paranoid someone might try doing what you’re guilty of though.

  • Michael J. Fell

    Further evidence (as if more was needed) that the U.S. federal government is being run by an anti-American oligarchy of self-imagined, self-appointed “progressive” “intellectual elites” who will force the will of a minority upon the majority…without their consent.

  • GinnyLee

    “Plaintiff Muneer Awad, executive director of the Oklahoma branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), argued that the amendment infringed on his First Amendment rights’.” “the measure would stigmatize him and others of his faith.”

    If it’s not a possibility for the Sharia laws ever to be imposed, and it doesn’t need to be litigated, why is Awad even concerned?

    “Sharia law” has reared it’s ugly head around the world – including in America with the “honor killings” and the like. THAT’S what should “stigmatize” Awad.

  • Tuco

    Well, I guess this topic would draw the sort of blither “anhonestnitwit” has provided, like a moth to a flame. Back on your couch now, Pajama Boy.

  • Cathy Davis

    So now the U.S. govt is involved in this? It would seem like an issue for the Supreme Court but not the federal govt since what the state did is not illegal. It’s not not breaking illegal pot laws. A state shutting down sharia law is not illegal. This country is going to pot, pardon the pun. CAIR is involved in cultural jihad and has its fingers in the pie at every level of govt. Islam is a political organization and this is a prime example.Shit on them.

  • Behind,

    No one is censoring your comments. The only comments we censor are comments that complain about us censoring because we don’t.