The hearing is on a request for a preliminary injunction against the new amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution. The measure was approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters in the Nov. 2 general election, when it was challenged in a lawsuit filed by Muneer Awad who is the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma.
Awad said Muslims support the way US secular courts currently handle Shariah-related issues — by calling in Muslim scholars and imams as expert witnesses in such cases as wills and divorce decrees that specify the use of Shariah principles but by ruling themselves on the legal disputes.
“Shariah is not a code of laws ... it's more of a guidance,” Awad told reporters. "I can have a Shariah-compliant will and still have the US court handle it.”
“We are humbled by this opportunity to show our fellow Oklahomans that Muslims are their neighbors and that we are committed to upholding the US Constitution and promoting the benefits of a pluralistic society,” Awad said regarding his CAIR-backed lawsuit.
However, that's not enough assurance for anti-jihad activists and Muslim watchdog groups that say there are theological differences between Judaism and Christianity on the one hand and Islam on the other, particularly in matters of their relationships to secular government.
Oklahoma State Sen. Anthony Sykes, a Republican and co-author of the Shariah ban, told Fox News that the outgoing Oklahoma attorney general had failed to respond to the CAIR lawsuit.
“The attorney general failed to file a response,” Sykes said. “I am afraid that this might get written in stone that shouldn’t be because the attorney general is leaving and a new one is coming in.”
One of the best rebuttals to this was by Michael Gerson, a speech writer for President Bush, who recently wrote an editorial in the Washington Post entitled: “Oklahoma Law Taunts Muslims.”
“Just to be on the safe side, voters in Oklahoma this month overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that prevents the Talebanization of …” Oklahoma, Gerson wrote. “Henceforth, there will be no public stonings in Ponca City, no forced burqa wearing in Bartlesville, no Shariah law in Lawton.”
“This is a novel use of American law — not to actually address a public problem, but to taunt a religious minority," he said.
“ The Oklahoma amendment purports to ‘Save Our State’ from disputed practices and beliefs within Islam. But the precedent reaches more broadly. Perhaps San Francisco could declare itself a “crusade-free zone,” just in case some of those intolerant Catholics are reading Urban II. If they resist being singled out, they must be pro-crusade. Or maybe Congress should pass a constitutional amendment forbidding sati — the historical practice of widow burning — just to put Hindus on notice. It’s not a problem, but, hey, we want to keep it that way,” noted Gerson.
Gerson said what Oklahoma has done is: “Faith-baiting — taking the least attractive elements or excesses of a religious tradition and symbolically legislating against them.”
He noted that a federal judge had blocked implementation of the amendment, and then noted the effects of the controversy in a wider, global context: There is, he said, “…a war on terrorism in which our enemies are motivated, in part, by their conception of Islam.”
Then expressing the fears of many, added: “Even if this is a small percentage of the global Muslim community, it represents a large threat to America. This war is very real — but we will lose it without Muslim allies. And we will lose those allies if America treats Islam as the enemy.”
