Muslim civil rights activists in the United States are celebrating a major victory in an Oklahoma court. According to Noah Feldman, professor of law at Harvard University, the law would likely discourage similar legislation in at least 20 U.S. states over the past several years.
LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) – A federal appeals court this week agreed with a lower court that blocked an Oklahoma law that would have barred state courts from considering or using Shariah law, the Islamic code of conduct.
Feldman says that the decision “should have a good, positive, desirable chilling effect . It should tell people in those jurisdictions that (similar laws) almost all will be judged unconstitutional.”
The issue began in the November 2010 election, when Oklahomans voted in favor of referendum SQ 755 – described as “a preemptive strike against Sharia Law coming to Oklahoma.”
“The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law,” the amendment read.
Sharia law always has a desirable, chilling effect on freedom. But thanks for clarifying your intentions. Feldman is vehemently pro-sharia, pro-Muslim Brotherhood and it’s a strain embedded in the Obama administration who likely watched closely, if not influenced, the Oklahoma situation from day one. As Christine Brim noted in Sharia Comes to the Supreme Court:
In December, 2006, Kagan hired Noah Feldman, architect of Iraq’s Constitution requiring Shariah, as a star faculty member at Harvard Law School. On March 16, 2008, Feldman published his controversial article “Why Shariah” in the New York Times Magazine, which promoted “Islamists” – the Muslim Brotherhood – as a progressive democratic party, and promoted Shariah as a model not just for Muslim-majority countries but for all: “In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world…” The article was adapted from his book The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State, which was published in late March, 2008.
On September 16, 2008, Kagan whole-heartedly endorsed Feldman’s promotion of the Muslim Brotherhood and Shariah by honoring him with the endowed Bemis Chair in International Law. Feldman’s speech on receiving the award was revealing: he advocated for an international, “outward interpretation” of the Constitution that could “require the U.S. to confer rights on citizens of other nations,” and allow for an “experimental Constitution.”
As to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist worldwide political organization that Feldman and Kagan support? Their motto is as revealing as Feldman’s speech:
“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
Given that slogan, you could well ask if Feldman really meant the Muslim Brotherhood when he wrote about “Islamists” in the book Kagan so admired that she gave him an endowed chair. And he anticipated that question; in the second footnote in his book he states, “Throughout this book, when I refer to Islamists or Islamism, I have in mind mainstream Sunni Muslim activists loosely aligned with the ideology of the transnational Muslim Brotherhood (MB)…the Brotherhood broadly embraces electoral politics, but without eschewing the use of violence in some circumstances, notably against those whom it defines as invaders in Iraq and Palestine.”