Shariah is coming! Shariah is coming!

[Cliff]

This will help our stratcomms for sure.

The Texas Board of Education has passed a resolution to limit references to Islam in textbooks.

V/R,

Cliff

[120mm]

This will help our stratcomms for sure.

The Texas Board of Education has passed a resolution to limit references to Islam in textbooks.

V/R,

Cliff

Well THIS is a valid response to a genuine concern. A normally Muslim-friendly (non-religious) friend of mine is doing a research project and has privately shared findings with me that pretty much show that textbook companies are trending toward PROMOTING Islam.

At issue is that any factual representation of Islam as a religion is subject to unending lawsuit peril from Radical Muslims living in the US, so the textbook manufacturers have defaulted to basically including a highly complimentary "See how Islam is superior to all the other world religions" theme.

The problem as I see it, is that Americans come in two flavors, vis-a-vis Islam. They are either xenophobic 'Murrican anti-Arab/furriner/Muslim, or they are spineless, brainless, gobs-o-goo "Religion of Peace" apologists. There is very little actual middle ground or understanding of how Islam works or what it stands for, at least among mainstream Muslims.

[Tom Odom]

And here I was worried the family farm might be at risk...

Group Launches Media Blitz in Oklahoma for Anti-Shariah Ballot Initiative
A group vowing to fight "Islamofascism" has launched a media blitz in Oklahoma supporting a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit the courts from considering Islamic or other international law when ruling on cases in Sooner State courtrooms....

...The group says the constitutional amendment will prevent the takeover of Oklahoma by Islamic extremists who want to undo America from the inside out.

[SteveMetz]

If that passes it will be proof positive that Oklahoma is not yet ready for democracy. And those buffoons probably don't know that the U.S. Constitution makes international law part of U.S. law. I assume they simply aren't sharp enough to understand the distinction between international law and foreign law. Nor are they bright enough to understand that in Western countries where sharia courts exist, like the UK, they are informal bodies which do not supersede British law.

It is pretty sad, though, that Woolsey has sailed boldly off the edge of reality.

[82redleg]

If that passes it will be proof positive that Oklahoma is not yet ready for democracy. And those buffoons probably don't know that the U.S. Constitution makes international law part of U.S. law. I assume they simply aren't sharp enough to understand the distinction between international law and foreign law. Nor are they bright enough to understand that in Western countries where sharia courts exist, like the UK, they are informal bodies which do not supersede British law.

It is pretty sad, though, that Woolsey has sailed boldly off the edge of reality.

The Constitution does? Please reference.

I'm sure some progressive judicial ruling does, but that doesn't keep it being as wrong as I don't know what.

And the sharia courts (as they exist in the UK and other places) are just a step. If you don't fear a religion that doesn't accept the separation of church and state, and demands that its followers use force to convert or make subservient non-believers, you are blind to the realities of Islam.

[SteveMetz]

The Constitution does? Please reference.

I'm sure some progressive judicial ruling does, but that doesn't keep it being as wrong as I don't know what.

And the sharia courts (as they exist in the UK and other places) are just a step. If you don't fear a religion that doesn't accept the separation of church and state, and demands that its followers use force to convert or make subservient non-believers, you are blind to the realities of Islam.

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.

Treaties are the primary source of international law. The other important source is custom, but most of customary law that matters has been ingrained in treaties.

I don't know a nice way to put this, but the notion of a sharia threat is absolute nonsense.

It's like this. The word "law" has multiple meanings. It's used to refer to guidelines which members of some organization agree to be bound by. There is a Boy Scout Law and the Mormon Church has a Law of Chastity. Adherence is voluntary by members of those organizations. It is NOT law in the sense of mandatory law passed by a legislature. It does NOT supersede local, state or Federal law.

That is what some Muslim communities in Western nations have elected to do. Sharia rulings do not replace or supersede British law or American law any more than the Boy Scout Law or the Mormon Law of Chastity do.

Things like this Oklahoma movement make Americans look like fools who don't understand the concept of law.

And the notion that Islam "demands that its followers use force to convert" is simply--and I'm looking for the nicest word I can find--wrong. But that is irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

[jmm99]

from Steve Metz
Treaties are the primary source of international law. The other important source is custom, but most of customary law that matters has been ingrained in treaties.

is definitely not accepted:

(1) internationally by such as the ICRC (e.g., its massive publications on Treaties and customary international humanitarian law and Customary international humanitarian law). The ICRC considers the rules in the 1977 Additional Protocols I and II (not ratified or acceded by the US; but accepted by many allies) to be customary IHL. That is just one example where "most of customary law that matters" has NOT been "ingrained" via treaties ratified or acceded by the US.

(2) domestically by such as the Lexington Principles Project at Washington and Lee University, which (pdf) sets out 45 principles of customary international human rights law that it seeks to incorporate into US law via judicial decision (p.23 pdf):

2. Introducing the Transnational Incorporation Doctrine

The Transnational Incorporation Doctrine, first developed for the Lexington Principles, asserts that there are some rights under international human rights law that are so fundamental that they should be included in our understanding of the right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Because international human rights are universal, this new interpretation would result in universal application of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause with respect to incorporated rights. Nationality and territoriality would play no role in determining their applicability. Rights incorporated through this mechanism would be universally applied to all human beings, and these protections would have a domestic legal status equivalent to all other due process rights. The Ninth Amendment seems to indicate that the Framers of the Constitution intended to allow for this possibility.

The effect of adopting the 45 Lexington Principles via the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause would be to write those principles into the Bill of Rights, totally bypassing the constitutional amendment process. It would indeed give new meaning to the overused term "judicial legislation".

That project is not some fringe nutcase group, but includes in members and on its advisory group (pp. 6-7; all three below are well-known in the LOAC field):

Geoffrey S. Corn
Associate Professor of Law
South Texas College of Law

Jack Goldsmith
Henry L. Shattuck Professor of Law
Harvard Law School

Lt. Col. Gary D. Solis, USMC (Ret.)
Adjunct Professor of Law
Georgetown University Law Center
Professor of Law (Ret.), U.S. Military Academy

Now, I don't favor this backdoor method of amending the Constitution; but one cannot question that these Transnationalists have told us exactly what they want to do. And that is to incorporate a great deal of "customary" I Law by a process outside the treaty process.

As to Oklahoma or any other state limiting its state judges' choice of law in state cases, it has a perfectly good constitutional right to do that, so long as it violates neither the Supremacy Clause nor the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Neither of those provisions requires application of Shariah (as a true legal sysytem - which it is; comparing it to "Boy Scout Law" is frankly insulting to centuries of very explicit Islamic jurisprudence).

To the extent that Muslims elect to use shariah rules as their own internal "canon law" within their mosques, that is another issue - a freedom of religion issue.

Personally, I think the whole "Shariah Thing" (yeh, Spencer and Geller et al; and their just as rabid opponents) is overblown. Where my line is crossed is where any religion's canon law is adopted either via legislation or judicial decision as a special rule of decision. That would violate the Establishment of Religion Clause.

The entire "discussion" re: Islam and Shariah brings out the worst of our present Era of Absolutism.

Regards

Mike

[J Wolfsberger]

And the notion that Islam "demands that its followers use force to convert" is simply--and I'm looking for the nicest word I can find--wrong. But that is irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

Steve, if you mean many Moslems do not believe that, I'll agree. However, there are still a large number of Moslems, to include all radical Moslems, who believe precisely that, based on a strict reading/interpretation of the Koran and Hadith.