Oklahoma’s Shari’a Ban and CAIR’s Risky Response

Razi Hashmi CAIR OK


David J. Rusin of Islamist Watch agrees with the ACT for America assessment that CAIR OK’s filing of a law suit against Oklahoma to prevent the implementation SQ 755 anti-Sharia Law Amendment to the State Constitution will lead to greater scrutiny of Islam, Sharia Law and the agenda of the CAIR national organization.


JRH 11/15/10


Oklahoma’s Shari’a Ban and CAIR’s Risky Response


by David J. Rusin

Nov 15, 2010 at 12:08 pm

Islamist Watch


On November 2, seven in ten Oklahoma voters approved the Save Our State Amendment, requiring judges to “uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law,” and other state statutes, while prohibiting them from looking to the “legal precepts of other nations or cultures,” specifically “international” and Shari’a law.


Oklahoma Rep. Rex Duncan, author of the ballot measure, calls it a “preemptive strike” against Shari’a. Supporters point with distress to the many Islamic arbitration tribunals enabled by the British government, as well as a 2009 New Jersey court ruling that denied a woman a domestic restraining order, based on the argument that her husband believes that, under Islam, he has a right to sex in marriage and thus did not exhibit criminal intent by raping his wife.


Leading the post-referendum hue and cry is CAIR, whose Oklahoma executive director sued to block its implementation, claiming that the text violates the First Amendment, smears Islam, and serves no “secular purpose.” A federal judge issued a temporary order to prevent certification of the results; a hearing is set for November 22.


CAIR’s efforts are brimming with contradiction. The group and its allies repeatedly insist that the amendment is pointless because, they say, there is no chance of Islamic law coming to the U.S. Yet “why bother to go to the trouble and expense of filing suit against an absurd, unnecessary measure? After all, a law against a non-existent threat may be silly, but if there is no need for the law in the first place, there is no need to sue to overturn it,” as Robert Spencer writes.


Adding to the irony is that past statements from CAIR’s own leaders have expressed a yearning for Islamic rule. “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,” CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper said in 1993. Similarly supremacist words have been attributed to CAIR founder Omar Ahmad.


CAIR’s position also may be counterproductive to its long-term goals. First, while peddling the “Islamophobia” meme by emphasizing hate crimes can tug on heartstrings, implicitly labeling the vast majority of voters as bigots alienates the public. Second, by taking an anti-anti-Shari’a stance, CAIR validates widespread fears about the group’s intentions and hands critics a club with which to beat it — an opportunity quickly seized by anti-Islamist Muslim Zuhdi Jasser, who accused CAIR of not supporting the separation of mosque and state.


Further, by launching a legal challenge that could drag on indefinitely, CAIR guarantees that Shari’a will garner far more news coverage than it otherwise would, with each story educating people about Islamic law and bringing unwanted attention to the stealth jihad.


Whatever the outcome in Oklahoma, there are two certainties: additional states will try to ban Shari’a and CAIR’s opposition will expose the group’s Islamism. Hence, things are looking up.


This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.


© 2007 – 2010 The Middle East Forum.

Did CAIR Help Our Cause?

Vicki Miles-LaGrange Fed Judge

It is not really getting the press time it deserves yet it should. What is the “it”? CAIR OK filed suit to a Federal Judge to prevent Oklahoma’s State Question 755 approved by over 70% of Oklahoma’s wise voters from becoming an applicable law as an Amendment to the Oklahoma State Constitution. SQ 755 has been called an anti-Sharia law; however it would apply to prevent any foreign judicial decision from being used as a precedent in Oklahoma State Courts which includes the theopolitical religion of Islam’s Shariah Law.


ACT for America believes the CAIR OK law suit may be a blessing in disguise. The reason being CAIR OK found a Federal Judge to place a stay on instituting SQ 755 into the fabric of the rule of law in Oklahoma. The perceived blessing is the prediction that the Federal Judge’s stay of SQ 755 will take the matter of Sharia Law all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. That process will make a national examination of the merits and short comings of Sharia Law compared to the U.S. Constitution. This means regardless of how SCOTUS rules, a Congressional Amendment to the Federal Amendment quite possibly get off the ground with the same kind of support that 70% of Oklahoma’s voters demonstrated on November 2, 2010.


JRH 11/13/10


Did CAIR Help Our Cause?

Lawsuit against Oklahoma shariah ban will expose America to CAIR’s real agenda and the oppressive nature of shariah law


Sent by: ACT for America

Sent: 11/12/2010 8:58 AM


Last week, after the Oklahoma affiliate of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) sued to block the Oklahoma amendment that passed with 70% support, we sent out a national email asserting that this lawsuit reveals CAIR’s real agenda—the advance of shariah law.

Investigative journalist and author Paul Sperry, co-author of the expose’ on CAIR entitled Muslim Mafia, recently posted an Investors Business Daily commentary (below, highlights added) that sheds more light on this.


Just as the Ground Zero Mosque controversy became a vehicle for a national discussion about Imam Rauf’s advocacy of shariah law, so will CAIR’s lawsuit. What’s more, the American people will get to see that current and former leaders of CAIR want Islamic law (shariah) to rule America.


We are not going to try to predict what judges will decide on this lawsuit as it works its way through the courts. But we do agree with Sperry’s comment below, regarding a national debate about shariah law: “This is not a debate CAIR wants to have.”


But we do.


Thank you, CAIR.




Shining A Light On Shariah Creep

Posted 07:14 PM ET November 10, 2010

Islamofascism: The Council on American-Islamic Relations may wish it never sued to overturn an Oklahoma ban on Shariah law. Now the entire nation will get to see it and other Islamists’ true anti-American colors.


CAIR is thumping its chest over persuading a Clinton-appointed federal judge to temporarily block Oklahoma from enacting a state constitutional amendment that prohibits state courts from considering Islamic law when deciding cases. Fully 70% of Oklahoma voters passed the landmark measure.


But CAIR has ignited a legal firestorm that will likely rage all the way to the Supreme Court. Thanks to CAIR’s latest bit of lawfare, Americans will get to hear a long overdue debate not just about the constitutionality of such bans on Shariah law but about the constitutionality of Shariah law itself.


This is not a debate CAIR wants to have, since it ultimately will have to defend the indefensible. It claims in a press release that Shariah law is “a dynamic legal framework” derived from Islamic scripture “and analytical reasoning.” In fact, there’s nothing reasoned about it. It’s a medieval legal code that administers cruel and unusual punishments such as stonings, amputations and honor killings. Think the Taliban.

Shariah can be seen in action this week with Pakistan’s death sentence on a Christian woman for blasphemy. Between 1986 and 2009, at least 974 people have been charged for defiling the Quran or insulting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.


CAIR, which thinks free speech is a one-way street, is working with the Organization of the Islamic Conference on an international blasphemy law that would criminalize “Islamophobia,” according to the book, “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”


Shariah also permits wife-beating, something CAIR also knows about. Its sister organization, the Islamic Society of North America, condones it in its fatwas (or religious rulings) for Muslim Americans. More, CAIR distributes a book, “The Meaning of the Holy Quran,” which authorizes men to hit their wives.


CAIR says it’s just a “civil rights advocacy group.” But the Justice Department says it’s a front group for Hamas and its parent, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement that has a secret plan to impose Shariah law on the U.S.


“From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg in a recent court filing.


U.S. prosecutors in 2007 named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal scheme led by the Holy Land Foundation to funnel millions to Hamas suicide bombers and their families.


“CAIR has been identified by the government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization, a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Jacks, who recently won an award from Attorney General Eric Holder for convicting the Holy Land terrorists.


Federal courts found “ample evidence” linking CAIR to the conspiracy and are expected to unseal the dossier in coming weeks.


The Holy Land revelations prompted the FBI to sever ties with CAIR until it can demonstrate it’s not a terror front. “Until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner,” advised Assistant FBI Director Richard Powers in a 2009 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.


CAIR’s leaders don’t want a ban on Shariah law, because they have a secret agenda to institutionalize Shariah law in America.


“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,” CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper let it slip out to a Minneapolis Star-Tribune reporter in 1993, before CAIR was formed.


CAIR’s founding chairman, Omar Ahmad, wants Shariah law to replace the Constitution. “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,” he told a Muslim audience in Fremont, Calif., in 1998. “The Quran should be the highest authority in America.”


CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad is an Islamic supremacist who thinks Muslims should run Washington: “Who better can lead America than Muslims?”


Islamizing America also happens to be the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood the radical, Cairo-based outlaw group the government says CAIR is fronting for. The founding archives of its U.S. branch, seized in an FBI raid and introduced as evidence in the Holy Land trial, reveal a “strategic goal” of “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house … so that Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” The Brotherhood calls its plan a “grand jihad.” CAIR argues in its suit that “the Shariah ban’s purpose is to stigmatize, denigrate and segregate plaintiff’s faith in the public’s mind as something foreign and to be feared.”


No, the goal is to make sure no Oklahoma judge considers Shariah law in rulings on domestic violence, family law, probate, free speech, contracts and other matters, as judges have in other states, to a wider degree in Canada and now on a routine basis in Britain. The ban is to prevent courts from legitimizing a religious legal system antithetical to the U.S. Constitution in the areas of freedom of speech, equality and humane punishment, among other bedrock Western principles.


Thanks to CAIR’s lawsuit, all this can now be aired out for the public.


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.

It’s All About Sharia


On November 2, 2010 the voters of Oklahoma voted into law SQ 755. SQ 755 was aimed at prohibiting rulings of International Law including with specificity that the theopolitical statutes of the religion of Islam as embodied in Sharia Law to be forbidden to the Oklahoma State Courts from making rulings based on those laws. In other words State Courts must only use American Constitutional Law and judicial precedents established via Constitutional Law in making rulings that could be judicial precedents for future adjudication in Oklahoma.


  Predictably the Council on America-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Oklahoma filed a law suit to prevent the application of SQ 755 on grounds the law meddles in religion. In essence CAIR-OK is upset that Islam and its tenets are portrayed in a negative light encoded in the rule of law. I have explained that SQ 755 is aimed at the political aspects of Sharia Law which are unconstitutional and abusive of American Civil Rights protecting free speech. I used the example of Islam’s allowance of marital rape because of the superiority of the male in that religion.


 ACT for America  has sent an email in which Brigitte Gabriel and Guy Rodgers discuss Sharia Law, Oklahoma’s SQ 755, NPR & Juan Williams, the Ground Zero Mosque and its Imam Rauf.


 JRH  11/9/10


 It’s All About Sharia

 NPR & Juan Williams; State Question 755 & CAIR; Imam Rauf & the Ground Zero Mosque—It’s all about sharia


 Sent by: ACT for America

 Sent: 11/9/2010 9:04 AM



Dear John,


·       Thanks to the national controversy surrounding the Ground Zero Mosque, this year more Americans became aware of a term many had never heard before—sharia law.


·       This past weekend Human Events published a column (see below) co-authored by ACT! for America president Brigitte Gabriel and executive director Guy Rodgers, dealing with the recent sacking of Juan Williams by NPR and what this means regarding sharia law.


·       One week ago ACT! for America efforts helped win overwhelming passage of a constitutional amendment in Oklahoma prohibiting its courts from using sharia law when deciding cases.


·       Two days later, the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) filed a lawsuit against the Oklahoma amendment.


These events and more are awakening Americans to the realization that the threat of radical Islam goes beyond the threat of terrorism. Terrorism is but one means to an end, and the ultimate end is the advancement of sharia law around the world, whether through violent jihad or stealth jihad.


When you forward our email alerts, encourage others to sign up for those alerts, make a contribution, or start or join a local chapter, you are helping us continue building the grassroots citizen action network that is effectively pushing back against the threat of radical Islam, both violent and stealth jihad, and its objective—the imposition of sharia law.


 NPR, Juan Williams, and Sharia Law
by Brigitte Gabriel and Guy Rodgers

NPR’s sacking of Juan Williams was more than the politically correct act du jour. It was the latest in a series of media and political capitulations to Sharia law.


A central provision of Sharia law is its prohibition against speech that can be construed as “defaming” Islam or the prophet Mohammed. Where Sharia is practiced and enforced, such “defamation” is a criminal offense that can be punished by death.


In other words, what we in America take for granted as free speech is a capital crime in some areas of the Muslim world.


Islamists around the world are seeking to impose Sharia’s muzzling of free speech on free societies. The Organization of the Islamic Conference, composed of 56 Islamic states, has won passage of a United Nations resolution calling on countries to criminalize speech that “defames” religion—clearly referring to Islam. After all, does anyone really expect countries like Saudi Arabia to criminalize speech that “defames” Judaism?


Criminalizing speech that is deemed “defamation” of Islam is tantamount to a backdoor enactment of Sharia law. The law may have a different name or description, such as prohibiting “hate speech,” but the effect on speech is the same as if Sharia law were in place.


The Netherlands and Austria are two countries where such de facto “Sharia-compliant” laws are in effect. Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders is currently on trial for publicly criticizing Islam. Austrian Parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted of a similar “crime” in early 2009. And just last week we were informed that Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian who is an ACT! for America member and chapter leader in our expanding international program, will go on trial there for allegedly transgressing the same law.


When newspapers around the world, including most in America, refused to publish the satirical Mohammed cartoons, capitulation to de facto Sharia law occurred. The ostensible reason was to avoid “offending” or “inflaming” the Muslim world. The practical effect was a widespread media self-censorship that was every bit as much a compliance with Sharia law as if Sharia law were the actual law of the land.


Some Muslims and Islamic organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) argue that such self-censorship is necessary because without it “Islamophobia” will continue to rise. But there is more here than meets the eye.


Immediately after Juan Williams’ appearance on The O’Reilly Factor, CAIR swung into action and demanded that NPR “address” what Juan Williams said.


Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR spokesman, appeared on Megyn Kelly’s program on Fox News to defend CAIR’s actions. Tellingly, he failed to reiterate his comment made in a 1993 article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, in which he said, “I wouldn’t want to give the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”


CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad expressed a similar sentiment in 1998 when he was quoted in two California newspapers maintaining that “the Koran should be the highest authority in America.”


In other words, he wants Sharia law, not the Constitution, to be the supreme law of the land.


Contrast Hooper’s statement with one recently made by moderate and reformist Muslim Dr. Tawfik Hamid:


“Organizations like ACT! for America have come into existence because of the very real threat posed to free people everywhere by what some call “radical Islam” or “Islamism.” Sadly, the response I see from too many in the Muslim world is to reflexively label such efforts as “Islamophobic” rather than [to] conduct a serious evaluation of Islam that asks why so many non-Muslims harbor legitimate fears and concerns. I believe [that] the Muslim world needs to provide a peaceful understanding of the religion that unambiguously rejects the current mainstream teachings in Islam that promote hatred, discrimination, and violence. It is the responsibility of Islamic scholars to provide such alternative teaching to Muslims before asking the world to stop engaging in so-called “Islamophobia.”


Hamid’s reference to the harboring of “legitimate fears” by non-Muslims speaks directly to what Juan Williams was expressing. Don’t shut down free speech. Instead, we should encourage more speech that candidly addresses the threat of radical Islam and what that threat means to Americans, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslims.


It’s clear that NPR decided to make an example of Juan Williams for crossing a line into the Forbidden Zone of political correctness when he spoke out on the “sensitive” issue of Islam. But NPR’s action transcends the boundaries of political correctness. As newspapers did when they self-censored cartoon renderings of the prophet Mohammed, NPR sent an unmistakable message to Islamists worldwide that Sharia law, even when not formally the law of the land, trumps our First Amendment.

Brigitte Gabriel is a terrorism analyst, a New York Best-selling author of “Because They Hate” and “They Must Be Stopped,” and president and CEO of ACT for America.org. Guy Rodgers is Executive Director of ACT for America.org.


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.

Oklahoma Sued for Anti-Sharia Law

Sharia & Liberty 2

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)

And here:


“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 (Moderate) Islam.


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.


JRH 11/7/10


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.