home
RSS
November 29th, 2010
04:27 PM ET

Judge issues permanent injunction on Oklahoma Sharia law ban

Editor's Note: CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears brings us this report from Washington.

A federal judge in Oklahoma has issued an order putting on hold the certification of a ballot measure that forbids state courts from considering or using international laws, as well as Sharia, or Islamic law.

That permanent injunction will allow the judge more time to consider the constitutional issues raised by State Question 755, which was approved by voters earlier this month.

Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange had earlier issued a temporary restraining order in favor of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which had sued to nullify the law completely.

"While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out," wrote the judge in Monday's order, "the court finds that the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual's constitutional rights."

The language of her 15-page order indicated Miles-LaGrange has initial doubts about the constitutionality of the ballot measure. She said the case goes "to the very foundation of our country, our Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights. Throughout the course of our country's history, the will of the 'majority' has on occasion conflicted with the constitutional rights of individuals."

The amendment would require Oklahoma courts to "rely on federal and state law when deciding cases" and "forbids courts from considering or using" either international law or Islamic religious law, known as Sharia, which the amendment defined as being based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.

In bringing suit, CAIR argued that the amendment violates both the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. The group's local leader Muneer Awad has said the amendment passed under a campaign of fear and misinformation about Islam.

State Question 755, also known as the "Save Our State" measure was approved by a 7-3 ratio. It was sponsored by State Reps. Rex Duncan and Anthony Skyes, both Republicans.

"The fact that Sharia law was even considered anywhere in the United States is enough for me" to sign on, Sykes told CNN. "It should scare anyone that any judge in America would consider using that as precedent."

Sykes said his concern was compounded by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's comments during her confirmation hearings in June that she would be willing to consider international law when considering cases before the court.

As written on the ballot, the measure states it would amend a state constitution section dealing with the state courts, making them "rely on federal and state law" when deciding cases, forbidding them "from considering or using international law" and "from considering or using Sharia Law."

The ballot then briefly described international law, which "deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes," and Sharia, which is "based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed."

"Shall the proposal be approved?" the ballot read, instructing voters to respond 'yes' if they're for the proposal and 'no' if they're against it.

Saleem Quraishi, president of the American Muslim Association of Oklahoma City, who runs the Islamic Center at the Grand Mosque of Oklahoma City, said there are more than 5,000 Muslims in the city. While there are no exact numbers for the Muslim population in the state, it is not among the larger communities, said Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic
Relations.

"It's just fear-mongering; it's nothing," Quraishi told CNN. "What's Sharia law have to do with Oklahoma?"

The Oklahoma controversy stems from a New Jersey legal case in which a Muslim woman went to a family court asking for a restraining order against her spouse claiming he had raped her repeatedly. The judge ruled against her, saying that her husband was abiding by his Muslim beliefs regarding spousal duties. The decision was later overruled by an appellate court, but the case sparked a nationwide firestorm. The issue spread to Oklahoma, prompting the ballot initiative.

There was no indication when the judge would hear the merits of the Oklahoma case and issue a ruling, but that could be some months away. The losing side could then appeal to a higher federal court, then possibly to the U.S Supreme Court.

The Oklahoma City-based Miles-LaGrange is a 1994 Clinton appointee.

The case is Awad v. Ziriax (CIV-10-1186).

– CNN National Security Producer Laurie Ure contributed to this report.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Church and state • Courts • Islam • Oklahoma • Politics • Religious liberty • United States

soundoff (45 Responses)
  1. Bennett Landavazo

    This is a wonderful write-up with well-scripted, engaging content which is entire of original and sensible views. Much of one's informative subject material is in line with my way of imagining.Alice from franchise

    December 18, 2013 at 7:04 am |
  2. Aldoi Crutsingerm

    Its like you read my mind! You appear to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you can do with a few pics to drive the message home a little bit, but instead of that, this is great blog. An excellent read. I will certainly be back.

    July 8, 2012 at 12:49 am |
  3. saudimorons

    Frankly, one of the reasons to come to this country away from India is that these stupid laws wit Islamic considerations have already ruined my country. Every law for hindus, christians, buddhists, jains and sikhs is common but muslims – they are treated conveniently per medieval and stupid sharia laws. I am disappointed that even here this is happening. The terror and murders that has been part of Indian life for ever since muslims came to India will eventually become part of life here.
    Muslims have already carved out pieces from Indian land – afghanistan,pakistan,bangladesh, kashmir and yet unborn idioti"stans". Is american the country where I should start imagining oklahomastan?

    January 10, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
  4. Maclean Scott

    YES I am also agree with the comment of the Moe. It's sad to see Americans sending their kids to die in the name of freedom.

    December 2, 2010 at 1:31 pm |
  5. Moe

    Wow it's sickening to see how the same hatred that Hitler once had for Jews is now in Americans towards Islam.

    I hope you people realize that racism/bigotry is the same regardless of what religion you guys are hating on. Whether it being Jewish people or Muslims. It's the exact same thing. This is no different than those of you who believe all black people are 'gangsters' and are afraid of them.

    It's sad to see Americans sending their kids to die in the name of freedom, and then so disgustingly and disgracefully using the freedom that their kids died for them to have to instill hate and fear into others. Shame on you all.

    December 1, 2010 at 3:25 pm |
  6. In Oklahoma

    If over 70 percent voted for this item. No to have Shariah. Then the people of Oklahoma Spoke. So, by the court system to put this injuction on are they saying that the Democratic way of life is wrong.

    November 30, 2010 at 1:39 pm |
    • Q

      However, in our consti-tutional democratic republic, one state's majority is not empowered to unilaterally alter foundational tenets in conflict with the U.S. Consti-tution. The simple truth is that in some cases, the will of the majority can be "wrong" when it attempts to infringe on individual liberties protected by the U.S. Consti-tution. Examples might include "Jim Crow" laws and local handgun bans. Still, if they ultimately lose, Oklahoma has the option to offer U.S. Consti-tutional amendments through their congressional Reps and Senators but even these are subject to judicial review for concordance with existing precedent. Checks and balances...

      November 30, 2010 at 2:00 pm |
    • Casual Observer

      Whats the hidden meaning in hyphenating consti-tutional?

      December 1, 2010 at 3:42 pm |
    • Q

      No hidden meaning, just trying to avoid flagging by the "auto-moderator" which picks up "naughty" words even when in the middle of "non-naughty" words.

      December 1, 2010 at 6:14 pm |
  7. Nabi

    please check out http://www.IslamicSolutions.Com/category/dr-pasha-audio/pasha-hour-international-podcast/

    November 30, 2010 at 9:49 am |
  8. B(iraq) Hussein Osama

    American Law
    when you reach an intersection, everyone (EVERYONE) stop at the red light. Do not cross on Red light, regardless of whether there is cross traffic or not. Break this law, and there will be a penalty, regardless of injury or not.

    Shariah Law
    when you reach a booze joint, everyone (EVERYONE) stop. Do not buy booze, regardless of whether you are a responsible drinker or not. Break this law, and there will be a penalty, regardless of whether your drinking hurts anyone or not.

    Shariah Law
    when you reach into the pants of someone else's wife, everyone (EVERYONE) stop right there and withdraw your hand. Do not cross the pan tyhose line, regardless of whether you both are enjoying the idea of adultery. Break this law, and there will be a penalty, regardless of whether your adultery hurts anyone else or not.

    Christian Law
    when you reach an intersection, CROSS if you see no traffic. The Holy Ghost is with you, you do not need to stop at the intersection, because the Holy Ghost has so enlightened you that even if you kill someone by crossing the traffic law, "you are above the law" because you believe in Jesus.

    notice in hypocrite America, no one uses the Christian Law!! They all implement a copied version of the Shariah Law.

    November 30, 2010 at 4:05 am |
    • B(iraq) Hussein Osama

      Correction

      Christian Law
      when you reach an intersection, CROSS if you see no traffic. The Holy Ghost is with you, you do not need to stop at the intersection, because the Holy Ghost has so enlightened you that you know why there is a red light, AND THUS YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW, the law does not apply to you. And even if you fail and as a result end up killing someone while crossing the red light, "you are SAVED" because you believe in Jesus, so there is NO PENALTY on you.

      November 30, 2010 at 4:17 am |
    • Reality

      Scroll up the page to find:

      The Five Steps To Deprogram 1400 Years of Islamic Myths:

      ( –The Steps take less than two minutes to finish- simply amazing, two minutes to bring peace and rationality to over one billion lost souls- Priceless!!!)

      November 30, 2010 at 7:56 am |
    • civilioutside

      You don't actually live in America, do you?

      November 30, 2010 at 9:50 am |
  9. Q

    INAL, but I believe one of the issues here is when binding arbitration takes into account "religious laws". In other words, I can't see Sharia shaping a criminal proceeding, but perhaps in certain varieties of civil litigation when two parties have agreed to a contract founded in Islamic principles? Here, I'm thinking of a Christian organization which stipulates arbitration as a means to settle employer/employee disputes. Regarding international laws, again, INAL, but it would seem that in the absence of some clear domestic precedent, referencing proceedings in other western democratic legal systems can't be taken off the table. I really don't know what types of cases would be tried at a state level adjudicating international/transnational interests?

    November 30, 2010 at 2:27 am |
    • Nonimus

      @Q,
      I believe you are correct about arbitration, in that if both parties agree to abide by certain rules, be they Sharia, Talmudic, or some contract, then it is treated as any other contractual agreement.
      As to the international law, I don't think it applies. The Consti.tution is the highest law and the courts decide/interpret that law along with existing statues and treaties. If the existing laws are found insufficient, it is the legislature's job to clarify the law. I think the only possible exception might be English common law, since many of our statues are supposedly codified versions of that.
      The legislature, on the other hand, is free to use any source it wants as precedence or justification for changes to the statues. Of course, it may very well be overturned by the courts if it violates an existing higher law, such as the consti-tution.

      November 30, 2010 at 10:57 am |
    • Casual Observer

      "...but perhaps in certain varieties of civil litigation when two parties have agreed to a contract founded in Islamic principles?"

      So, is an arranged marriage a contract that both parties have agreed to?

      December 1, 2010 at 3:46 pm |
    • Q

      CO- INAL, but I don't believe arranged marriages are recognized as legally-binding contracts in the U.S., but perhaps something like pre-nuptial agreements could conceivably be based in religious laws and require legally-binding arbitration rather than typical civil proceedings.

      December 1, 2010 at 6:18 pm |
  10. TheRationale

    I think the best thing to do is to issue a reinforcing sort of law on the Bill of Rights decreeing that no religious law shall be used as a basis of carrying out justice (which would buttress the Establishment Clause).

    November 29, 2010 at 11:34 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Should not be neccessay as establishment clause should be "good enogh," but I agree.

      I think the thumpers in Oklahoma and elsewhere will rue the day that this question was put on the ballot. Their over-reaction to a one time ruling that was overturned will probably drive an even a greater separation of church and state for ALL religions.

      November 30, 2010 at 12:25 am |
    • .308

      I think that the judge has already received briefs and phone calls from the US Dept. of Treasury, several branches of the Federal Reserve, and a half-dozen of the largest banks and brokerage houses.

      The endorsement of Sharia will happen, hopefully on a limited basis regulated by legislation. Because of the precedent that has been set by these organizations in their participation with sharia finance channels, domestically and abroad, the problem will be how to contain it. And we may not unless we act preemptively. Maybe not even then. This may go very badly, very quickly, thanks to our own government shooting itself in the foot.

      November 30, 2010 at 1:05 am |
    • HotAirAce

      @.308

      You may have a point! I'm so single-minded about certain other aspects of religion that I didn't think to apply "follow the money..."

      I think that *if* any international law tainted by any religion is endorsed, things will get very ugly...

      November 30, 2010 at 1:24 am |
    • Peace2All

      @HotAirAce

      Hey Ace...!

      You Said: "I think the (thumpers) in Oklahoma and elsewhere will rue the day that this question was put on the ballot. Their over-reaction to a one time ruling that was overturned will probably drive an even a greater separation of church and state for ALL religions."

      Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not quite sure that i am understanding your comment above. Since, the Judge put a 'permanent injunction' (for the moment, while she is pondering this) on the amendment that would 'forbid courts from 'not' allowing the use of International and/or Sharia Law in their judgement proceedings... should the Judge decide in it's favor, i.e... that the courts 'can' use Sharia Law, then I would think that would certainly open the door to ALL religions, especially the Christians, to come galloping through–narrowing the gap between Church/Government...yes...?

      Again, maybe I am misinterpreting here, but, should the Judge rule that they can't use Sharia Law, then that would possibly drive an even greater separation of Church and Government.

      Anyway you look at it, I for one am all for the greatest, widest and firmest 'separation of Church and Government.'

      Peace...

      November 30, 2010 at 1:25 am |
    • HotAirAce

      I think we are on the same page.

      It is my observation that when someone asks an authority about something, the answer usually confines the situation more than is expected.

      I don't think it is likely that religous based law, from any religion, will be endorsed. By trying to pre-emptively ban sharia law, all religous law will be banned, and current laws that *might* be base on religion *may* be looked into. So, while I can see great good for society in general, I think the thumpers have shot themselves in the foot, and will regret it. And I will rejoice!

      November 30, 2010 at 1:37 am |
    • Peace2All

      @HotAirAce

      O.K... thanks for elaborating a bit further. Yes... I agree, we are on the same page. 'Granted' that the Judge, and higher court rulings will 'shoot down' 'any' attempts to infuse Religion into Government.

      So, I am with ya' on that brother...! Rejoice we will...!

      Peace...

      November 30, 2010 at 1:45 am |
    • Peace2All

      @HotAirAce

      Just a follow-up question. I know you live in Canada...yes...? How does the Canadian Government handle these types of Church/Government Separation Issues...?

      Peace...

      November 30, 2010 at 1:48 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Yes, I am Canadian, living in Canada. My short aswer would be "inconsistently."

      God is referenced in our consti-tution and national anthem, but as indicated in the survey that accompanied the Blair/Hitchens debate, Canadians view the value of religion quite differently than Americans. But advancement of a specific religion is one of the allowed objectives for tax-free not-for-profit status.

      So I would say that the government clings to old-school treatment of religion while the population cares much less.

      November 30, 2010 at 2:50 am |
    • Peace2All

      @HotAirAce

      Thanks...

      Peace...

      November 30, 2010 at 11:07 am |
  11. B(iraq) Hussein Osama

    Judge issues injunction against sharia, while hypocrite christian america practices shariah across the border (death sentence in Texas) and all over the US (traffic law = a basic copy of shariah law).

    November 29, 2010 at 6:06 pm |
    • Keith

      Death sentence in Texas? For who? Major Nidal Hassan? Dip the bullets in pigs blood and blow him away. While your at it get the underwear bomber, Time Square bomber, Christmas tree bomber.... Quit screwing around with these vermin-let them know they won't be going to their "paradise". They won't get any virgins unless the firing squad is comprised of nuns.

      November 29, 2010 at 8:06 pm |
    • me

      yeah, i see what you are saying. but "common sense" law should not include executtion. so dont call the texas penial system Christian. God created the heavens and earth. Even athiests live by His laws for peace of mind. Science is just a photocopy of His work. Man believing in its ability to create is frivolous. we have the ability to see and expand our understanding, not create. babies are not ours, just watch one. you'll see what i mean.

      November 29, 2010 at 10:43 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @me

      – "common sense" law should not include executtion: True
      – dont call the texas penial system Christian: Don't Know
      – God created the heavens and earth: False
      – Even athiests live by His laws for peace of mind: False
      – Science is just a photocopy of His work: False
      – Man believing in its ability to create is frivolous: False
      – we have the ability to see and expand our understanding, not create: False
      – babies are not ours, just watch one. you'll see what i mean: Huh?!?!

      November 30, 2010 at 12:18 am |
    • Peace2All

      @me

      What the heck...?

      You Said:-" God created the heavens and earth. Even athiests live by His laws for peace of mind. Science is just a photocopy of His work. Man believing in its ability to create is frivolous. we have the ability to see and expand our understanding, not create. babies are not ours, just watch one. you'll see what i mean."

      What does 'any' of your post have to do with whether or not our U.S. courts should be allowed to consider using Muslim Sharia Law in our their court cases and proceedings...?

      Peace...

      November 30, 2010 at 1:33 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Keith

      Is virginity a requirement to be a nun? I never knew that.

      "Dipped in pig's blood"? Hmmm...Maybe you should cut back on the raw meat.

      Actually, there is as much evidence that the Muslim Heaven and reward system is true, as there is for the Christian. Both are products of man's mind. There is no evidence for an afterlife. Anyone's afterlife.

      What if Jesus read your comment?

      It is good that Jesus is/was illiterate.

      But, He could make one heck of a table!

      Remember the table that was used for the last supper? Yep! That was His handy work!

      Jesus was going to make some more chairs, but He ran out of time. Maybe he will get to this on his return trip. LOL

      Jesus thought the earth was flat like a round table. All people of the Bronze Age thought this. They were ignorant.

      Love and Prayers!

      November 30, 2010 at 10:11 am |
    • Peace2All

      @Keith

      You Said:- " Dip the bullets in pigs blood and blow him away."

      What...? Is this kinda' like using 'silver bullets' for werewolves or something...?

      You Said:- " Quit screwing around with these vermin-let them know they won't be going to their "paradise". They won't get any virgins unless the firing squad is comprised of nuns."

      I am with David Johnson on his assessment of your comment, and I would again add, that as a 'Christian,' I'm not so sure that God, is very happy with your hate and desire to harm and kill, which from other threads seems to be pretty much anyone that is Muslim(besides the underwear/shoe bomber, etc...)-border-lining on anyone that 'may' be non-Christian.

      They may not be getting to "Paradise" with their 72 virgins, but it's not looking like you may be going to the big 'Heaven' either.

      And yes, I don't recall 'nun's' having to be 'virgins' to become one( a nun). Maybe I'm wrong here...?

      Anyways, Keith, always nice chatting with you...

      Peace...

      November 30, 2010 at 12:17 pm |
    • Keith

      Peace2all, Yeah, sorta like silver bullets. General Black Jack Pershing made short work of a muslim insurrection in the Philipennes. Israel current has vats of hogs lard on it public transportation. A suicide bomber can't possibly detonate his bomb without getting some lard on himself. If a muslim comes in contact with pigs blood or lard, he is unclean and cannot enter paradise. Do not pass go, do not collect 72 virgins. Do I believe this? No. But they do. Use it against them. Perhaps your buddy Muneef could shed some light on the subject. And if you're saying I won't be going either, then are you admitting to a paradise or heaven? You seem to be admitting to a "judgement". Seek and ye shall find. Keep asking, seeking, and knocking. Peace.

      November 30, 2010 at 6:50 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @Keith

      Hey Keith...

      If I hadn't mentioned it before in any of our discussion, I am actually an 'agnostic.' So, my claim is that "I don't know... Maybe there is something after death...maybe not." Given that I, several years ago, had an NDE or near-death experience...i.e..– 'clinically' dead for a period of time, i certainly have my thoughts on the matter, and you might even say I have been there and back. What it was... I make no claims. Again, I don't know. That is why I enjoy the discussions and debates that go on here and on other blogs, because I get to see an amazing variety of opinions-from the extreme to the mundane. So, for me it's about learning and growing, and being a better and more caring and aware Human.

      And, as for you asking if I was admitting that their 'may' be a Heaven or Paradise..or 'something.' Well, I guess I was... Again, I 'really' don't know for sure either way. I know you 'believe' you are correct, but in actuality-you *really* don't know either way either. You have a passionate and fervent belief, which I 'respect.' (I believe from our few discussions-you are a strict biblical evangelical...yes...?) But, beliefs are not *absolute facts* when it comes to God/after-life, heaven, hell, etc...domain.

      So, -Keith, I do and will continue my quest of 'seeking, asking, knocking.' I sincerely hope that 'you' will continue as well.

      Peace...

      November 30, 2010 at 8:20 pm |
    • Keith

      Peace2all, Glad to hear that. If you seek Him, you will find Him. It's a promise. I wish you well in your quest. I had a similiar experience-the brightest white on one side and the blackest black on the other. My experience occured before I was "saved". In it, it was presented to me that I had a choice to make-one side or the other-there was no middle ground. Anyway, I wish you well. Later.

      December 1, 2010 at 7:29 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @Keith

      Interesting... Maybe we have more in common than we originally thought.

      Peace...

      December 2, 2010 at 1:43 pm |
  12. Reality

    Dear Judge Miles-LaGrange,

    Saving Muslims is quite easy!!!

    The Five Steps To Deprogram 1400 Years of Islamic Myths:

    ( –The Steps take less than two minutes to finish- simply amazing, two minutes to bring peace and rationality to over one billion lost souls- Priceless!!!)

    Are you ready?

    Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

    "1. Belief in Allah"

    aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc. should be added to your cleansing neurons.

    "2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

    Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gi-b G-nab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "crea-tionist".

    "3. To believe in the existence of angels."

    A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/de-vils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hitt-ites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ug-ly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as f–airies and "tin–ker be-lls". Modern de-vils are classified as the de-mons of the de-mented.

    "4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

    Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

    Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the un-educated masses in line. Today we call them for-tune tellers.

    Prophecies are also invali-dated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

    "5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

    Mohammed spent thirty days "fasting" (the Ramadan legend) in a hot cave attended to by his wives before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic vi-olence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallu-cinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

    Walk these Five Steps and we guarantee a complete recovery from your Islamic ways!!!!

    November 29, 2010 at 5:35 pm |
  13. Reality

    From a Muslim sch-olar who was driven from Islam:

    From- Ay-a-an Hi-rsi A-li's auto-biography, "In-fi-del".

    "Thus begins the extraordinary story of a woman born into a family of desert nom-ads, circ-um-cised as a child, educated by radical imams in Kenya and Saudi Arabia, taught to believe that if she uncovered her hair, terrible tragedies would ensue. It's a story that, with a few different twists, really could have led to a wretched life and a lonely death, as her grandmother warned. But instead, Hir-si A-li escaped – and transformed herself into an internationally renowned spokeswoman for the rights of Muslim- women."
    ref: Washington Post book review.
    four excerpts:

    "Some of the Saudi women in our neighborh-ood were regularly be-aten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their scre-ams reso-unded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"

    "The Pakistanis were Muslims but they too had ca-stes. The Un-tou-chable girls, both Indian and Pakistani were darker skin. The others would not play with them because they were un-to-uchable. We thought that was funny because of course they were tou-chable: we touched them see? but also h-o-rrifying to think of yourself as un-touchable, de-spi-cable to the human race."

    "Between October 2004 and May 2005, eleven Muslim girls were killed by their families in just two regions (there are 20 regions in Holland). After that, people stopped telling me I was ex-aggerating."

    "The kind on thinking I saw in Saudi Arabia and among the Br-otherhood of Kenya and Somalia, is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. It preserves the feudal mind-set based on tribal concepts of honor and shame. It rests on self-deception, hypr-ocricy, and double standards. It relies on the technologial advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes the transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam".

    November 29, 2010 at 5:31 pm |
  14. Reality

    Dear Judge Miles-LaGrange,

    In case you missed Sir Salman Rusdie's review of the state of Islamic laws:

    From Sir Salman Rushdie's book "Satanic Verses", p. 376, paperback issue – One of the passages that prompted the koranic-driven Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a fatwa against Sir Rushdie:

    Mahound = Mohammed
    Gibreel = Gabriel

    "The faithful lived by lawlessness, but in those years Mahound – or should one say the Archangel Gibreel? – should one say Al-Lah? – became obsessed by law.

    Amid the palm-trees of the oasis Gibreel appeared to the Prophet and found himself spouting rules, rules, rules, until the faithful could scarcely bear the prospect of any more revelation, Salman said, rules about every da-mn thing, if a man farts let him turn his face to the wind, a rule about which hand to use for the purpose of cleaning one's behind.

    It was as if no aspect of human existence was to be left unregulated, free. The revelation – the recitation- told the faithful how much to eat, how deeply they should sleep, and which se-xual positions had received divine sanction, so that they leamed that so-domy and the missionary position were approved of by the archangel, whereas the forbidden postures included all those in which the female was on top.

    Gibreel further listed the permitted and forbidden subjects of conversation, and earmarked the parts of the body which could not be scratched no matter how unbearably they might itch.

    He vetoed the consumption of prawns, those bizarre other-worldly creatures which no member of the faithful had ever seen, and required animals to be killed slowly, by bleeding, so that by experiencing their deaths to the full they might arrive at an understanding of the meaning of their lives, for it is only at the moment of death that living creatures understand that life has been real, and not a sort of dream.

    And Gibreel the archangel specified the manner in which a man should be buried, and how his property should be divided, so that Salman the Persian got to wondering what manner of God this was that sounded so much like a businessman.

    This was when he had the idea that destroyed his faith, because he recalled that of course Mahound himself had been a businessman, and a damned successful one at that, a person to whom organization and rules came naturally, so how excessively convenient it was that he should have come up with such a very businesslike archangel, who handed down the management decisions of this highly corporate, if noncorporeal, God."

    November 29, 2010 at 5:16 pm |
  15. JOHN Q

    The ammendment would be more relevant if they banned consideration of the Ten Commandments in court.

    November 29, 2010 at 4:36 pm |
    • Richard

      I belive Alabama was required to remove a plaque or something that had the 10 Comandments from either the state capitol or a court room. I can't remember which a few years ago. Maybe someone else has all the details.

      November 29, 2010 at 6:44 pm |
    • Luke

      They already do.

      November 29, 2010 at 9:14 pm |

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.