Yesterday Judge Miles-LaGrange went against the will of the people, and blocked the certification of the Sharia ban. Besides doing that she has also shown us just how uninformed on the issue she is. She has blinded accepted what the Council on American Islamic Relations has told her.

From the Court documents.

Furthermore, plaintiff has presented testimony that “Sharia Law” is not actually “law”, but is religious traditions that provide guidance to plaintiff and other Muslims regarding the exercise of their faith. Plaintiff has presented testimony that the obligations that “Sharia Law” imposes are not legal obligations but are obligations of a personal and private nature dictated by faith.

I expect CAIR members to say anything to protect Islam, but I also expect the Judge to do some actual research on the issue.

Plaintiff also testified that “Sharia Law” differs depending on the country in which the individual Muslim resides. For example, plaintiff stated that marrying more than one wife is permissible in Islam but in the United States, where that is illegal, Muslims do not marry more than one wife because Sharia in the United States mandates Muslims to abide by the law of the land and respect the law of their land.

I challenge anyone to show me a version of Sharia Law, that does not discriminate against non-Muslims and women. No one can, because the Koran discriminates against both groups of people. If Muslim men are not marrying more than one wife here, it is only because they do not want to go to jail for bigamy. Are they supposed to be applauded for that? Once again CAIR has used the law of the land, against the land.

The plaintiff is most likely talking about Koran verse 4:59.

Koran verse 004.059
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.

The verse means authority amongst Muslims, and the final determination goes to Sharia. This is clearly explained here.

{ يَا أَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ أَطِيعُواْ ٱللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُواْ ٱلرَّسُولَ وَأُوْلِي ٱلأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ وَٱلرَّسُولِ إِن كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلآخِرِ ذٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلاً }

O you who believe, obey God, and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you, that is, rulers, when they command you to obey God and His Messenger. If you should quarrel, disagree, about anything, refer it to God, that is, to His Book, and the Messenger, while he lives, and thereafter [refer] to his Sunna: in other words examine these [disputes] with reference to these two [sources], if you believe in God and the Last Day; that, reference to the two [sources], is better, for you than quarrelling or [adhering to] personal opinions, and more excellent in interpretation, in the end.

These two other translations of the Koran state the same thing. “You” means Muslims who are in authority.

PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.

SHAKIR: O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.

Now we get to see just how uniformed the judge is.

Based upon this testimony, the Court finds that plaintiff has shown “Sharia Law” lacks a legal character, and, thus, plaintiff’s religious traditions and faith are the only non-legal content subject Case 5:10-cv-01186-M Document 20 Filed 11/29/10 Page 11 of 15 12 to the judicial exclusion set forth in the amendment. As a result, the Court finds plaintiff has made a strong showing that the amendment conveys a message of disapproval of plaintiff’s faith and, consequently, has the effect of inhibiting plaintiff’s religion.

Really judge, what do you call this? Sharia Law (Islamic Law) 101: Non-Muslims Under Sharia.

If you are not happy with what you have read so far, you are really not going to like the rest. Not only has she done no research on her own, she is actually encouraging the courts to use Sharia Law.

Second, plaintiff claims that his First Amendment rights will be violated by the invalidation of his last will and testament which incorporates various teachings of Mohammed. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that because Oklahoma courts will be banned from considering Sharia Law, an Oklahoma court would not be able to probate his last will and testament because it would be Case 5:10-cv-01186-M Document 20 Filed 11/29/10 Page 6 of 157 required to consider Sharia Law.

The Court finds that plaintiff is objectively justified in believing that said consequences would result from the amendment. Specifically, the article in plaintiff’s will which addresses the distribution of certain of plaintiff’s assets to charity is specifically linked to a teaching of Mohammed – what the amendment would clearly consider Sharia Law – and, thus, it would appear that any Oklahoma court probating plaintiff’s last will and testament would be required to consider Sharia Law when it issued its order approving the distribution of plaintiff’s assets and, because it would be banned from considering Sharia Law, it, thus, would be precluded from probating plaintiff’s will.

The Court further finds that as a result, plaintiff will suffer a concrete, particularized, and imminent injury in that his last will and testament will likely be unable to be probated and, therefore, be unenforceable. Finally, the Court finds, and as defendants have conceded, that plaintiff has shown that his alleged injuries are fairly traceable to the challenged action of defendants and are likely to be
redressed by a favorable decision. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has standing to bring the instant action.

Judge Miles-LaGrange, you need to take a long look in the mirror, and see how you have failed America. We have our laws, and we do not need Sharia. It is time for you to step down.

Link to Court documents