John R. Houk
© November 7, 2010
On November 2, 2010 the State of Oklahoma passed anti-Sharia Law State Question 755 with an overwhelming 70% approval rating. SQ 755 prohibits State Courts to utilize Islamic Sharia Law as a precedent for any legal decisions in Oklahoma. This may seem frivolous as in the myth of Separation of Church and State; however the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has decided make this an infringement of Religious Freedom issue.
Frankly there are aspects of Islam which need to be infringed upon. Really the religious aspect of Islam is absolutely a religion that should be protected by Constitutional Law; however there is a Political Islamic part of the religion that must be prohibited at all costs not only in Oklahoma but in ALL of America. You see, unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam’s religious theology and political ideology are interwoven in that religion. Religion and politics are so interwoven in Islam that the legal affairs of a Muslims life are as intrinsic to worship as are the religious practice of worship. In Muslim dominated nations Sharia Law is more than the basis for the rule of law it is encoded into the frame work defining rights and punishment theo-politically in political society and the affairs of government. If I should hazard a guess, the intrinsic nature of both theology and politics in Islam is a major reason that medieval restrictions on civil rights and in adjudicating criminal punish for crimes is harsh beyond the comprehension of possibility of Westerners.
A classic example of theo-politics in Islam is marriage. Islam validates the right of a husband to punish his wife (or wives) for disobedience in affairs of the household and in the marriage bed. In the latter that means a horny husband may force (i.e. rape) his wife to have sex with him. In Christianity the husband is the head of the household much to the chagrin of Secular Humanists and feminists. Although history has shown that Christian males have abused this Biblical headship to excuse wife beating and probable the rape of their wife, both are DEFINITLEY contrary to Biblical Scripture:
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body,[a] of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”[b] (Emphasis added. Ephesians 5: 22-31 NKJV)
Check out the official ruling of Muslim Clerics (in Christianity this would be Ministers, Priests and theologians with Doctor of Theology credentials) on husbands raping their wife.
Samir Abu Hamza, who runs an Islamic centre in Melbourne, ridiculed Australian laws banning forced sex within marriage.
Hamza told a male audience in Sydney: ‘Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?’
He added that wives must immediately respond to their husbands’ sexual demands.
The firebrand preacher also said a man was entitled to use ‘limited force’ as a last resort to punish a disobedient wife. (Daily Mail 1/22/09)
“In Islamic Sharia, rape is adultery by force. So long as the woman is his wife, it cannot be termed as rape,” The Independent quoted cleric Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed as saying.
Men accused of raping their wives should not be prosecuted as “sex is part of marriage”, said Sayeed, president of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain. He made the comments to the blog The Samosa — and reiterated them to the The Independent.
Sayeed told the website: “Clearly there cannot be any rape within the marriage. Maybe aggression, maybe indecent activity… Because when they got married, the understanding was that sexual intercourse was part of the marriage, so there cannot be anything against sex in marriage.
“Of course, if it happened without her desire, that is no good, that is not desirable.”
British law makes rape within marriage illegal.
Sayeed also suggested that women who claim to have been raped by their husbands should not immediately go to the police.
“Not in the beginning, unless we establish that it really happened. Because in most of the cases, wives… have been advised by their solicitors that one of the four reasons for which a wife can get a divorce is rape, so they are encouraged to say things like this.”
Asked how men found to have raped their wives were to be punished, he said: “He may be disciplined, and he may be made to ask forgiveness. That should be enough.” (Deccan Herald 10/14/10)
North American and European Clerics have decided that marital rape is not rape because there is no such thing as rape in a marriage. My fellow Oklahomans and Americans these Islamic Clerics are representative of what Muslim apologists would deem the leaders of Moderate Islam in the West:
Islamic Cleric residing in the UK – Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed – representing Britain’s Islamic Sharia Council:
Clearly there cannot be any “rape” within the marriage. Maybe “aggression”, maybe “indecent activity.”
In Islamic sharia, rape is adultery by force. So long as the woman is his wife, it cannot be termed as rape.
Sayeed asserts the Islamic Sharia Council bona fides:
No other sharia council can claim they are so diverse as ours because other sharia councils, they are following one school of fiqh [Islamic jurisprudence]. Ours is diverse –we are hanafi, shafi’i, hanbali.we have Bangladeshi…we have Pakistani, we have Indian, we have Palestinian, we have Somali scholars on our board.
The point being made by Sayeed is that the Islamic Sharia Council ruling does not represent Radical Islam (aka Salafi, Wahhabi and/or Deobandi). Rather the Islamic Schools of thought are diverse and therefore is representative of mainstream (
The representative of Moderate Islam in North America made sure that their moderate brethren in Europe were superior to North American Moderate Muslims. The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America also assert that there is no such thing as marital rape by the mere virtue of Allah establishing the superiority males over females; hence husbands over wives. It is the duty of a wife to provide sex at any time the male requires it; thus there is no rape in Islam:
In the name of Allah, all praise is for Allah, and may peace and blessing be upon the Messenger of Allah and his family. To proceed:
For a wife to abandon the bed of her husband without excuse is haram [forbidden]. It is one of the major sins and the angels curse her until the morning as we have been informed by the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). She is considered nashiz (rebellious) under these circumstances. As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses; and Allah Almighty is more exalted and more knowledgeable. (Emphasis is mine, ibid.)
Marital rape is just one of a multitude of Islamic permitted violence encoded in theo-political Islam. You would think in America that jurisprudence would be wise enough to recognize that the political intrinsic nature of Islam is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and the evolving validity of human civil rights which are distributed equally to both male and female genders in the United States. Oklahoma’s SQ 755 passed by over 70% of Oklahoma voters who recognized that Sharia Law CANNOT allow its tentacles of repression to begin wrapping itself within the American rule of law as many European nations have allowed to happen.
If you think that a Judge in America would not fall for Sharia Law being utilized as a precedent in American criminal or civil law need to examine a recent ruling by a New Jersey Judge:
Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex
Muhammad said: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari 4.54.460).
He also said: “By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle” (Ibn Majah 1854).
And now a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife — not because he didn’t do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: “This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”
Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time. (Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch 7/24/10)
Since the political aspects of Islam as encoded in Sharia Law are as intrinsic as Islam’s theological worship, it is not surprising that Oklahoma’s chapter of CAIR has filed a law suit against the State of Oklahoma. SQ 755 thus is indeed a restriction of the religious practice of Islam because Oklahoma Law now has made it the rule of law that the medieval barbarism of Sharia cannot be accepted as legal precedence in Oklahoma State Courts. BUT I say if any religion’s intrinsic faith is to overturn the Rights of U.S. Constitution, that religion’s political aspects should be made illegal to uphold the Constitution. The irony is CAIR Oklahoma will attempt to shoot down SQ 755 by using the very Constitution that Sharia Law abrogates.
Check out this email sent by ACT for America bringing public notification of CAIR’s intentions against the U.S. Constitution.
CAIR sues Oklahoma sharia ban
Sent by: ACT for America
Sent: 11/5/2010 1:21 PM
CAIR’s real agenda revealed:
“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest authority in America.”
Omar Ahmad, CAIR co-founder, quoted in the San Ramon Valley Herald,
July 4, 1998
As the National Journal story reports below, the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) has filed suit to block implementation of State Question 755, known as the “Save Our State” amendment.
SQ 755 prohibits Oklahoma courts from using sharia law when judging cases. The amendment was overwhelmingly approved by Oklahoma voters, garnering over 70% support.
ACT! for America played a key role in educating the voters about SQ 755, including two weeks of statewide radio advertising, 600,000 automated phone calls with a message recorded by former CIA director James Woolsey, editorials and letters to the editor, and radio interviews.
Prior to the vote CAIR’s Oklahoma director had argued SQ 755 was unnecessary because there was no chance sharia was coming to Oklahoma.
The CAIR lawsuit now confirms what CAIR leaders have said in the past—CAIR’s real agenda is the importation of sharia law to America.
Consider Omar Ahmad’s quote above. What is he actually saying? That sharia law should govern America.
Consider this 1993 quote from Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s current communications director, who told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”
What is Hooper saying? That sharia law should govern America.
Not surprisingly, in recent years CAIR has been quiet about this agenda, but now that agenda has been smoked out by SQ 755, a measure which is not discriminatory nor inhibits the practice of religious Islam, but protects non-Muslims and Muslims alike from the tyranny of sharia law.
Muslim Group Sues Oklahoma Over Sharia Amendment
By Althea Fung
November 5, 2010 | 8:06 a.m.
A Muslim advocacy group is suing to stop a measure approved by Oklahoma voters on Tuesday that would ban judges in the state from considering Islamic law in court proceedings.
About 70 percent of voters approved State Question 755, which says “the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law.”
Muneer Awad, director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’s Oklahoma chapter, filed the suit in U.S. District Court to block officials from certifying the measure. Awad told the Wall Street Journal the measure violates the First Amendment right to practice religion without government intervention.
CAIR legal adviser Gadeir Abbas said SQ755 was “designed to stigmatize Muslims, to turn the Constitution of Oklahoma into a vehicle for oppressing a minority that is currently unpopular.”
The “Save Our State Amendment” was proposed by Republican state Sen. Anthony Sykes, who said the amendment isn’t about persecuting Muslims but keeping the Oklahoma judiciary system from “sliding down a slippery slope.”
Former CIA Director Jim Woolsey, who worked to get the amendment passed, said on Fox and Friends this morning that it’s about not allowing criminals to use religious code to circumvent the system when they’re “prosecuted for beating or assaulting their wives or daughters.”
“What we really need to do is make sure people can’t void the impact of criminal law by citing their religious beliefs,” he said.
In New Jersey, a judge declined to place a restraining order on a Moroccan man who forced his wife to have sex. The ruling was later overturned.
A hearing is set for Monday.
Oklahoma Sued for Anti-Sharia Law
John R. Houk
© November 7, 2010
CAIR sues Oklahoma sharia ban
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.