Tulsa, not Tehran

"(Proposition 755) forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia law."
Oklahoma Referendum, passed November 2, 2010

The constitutionality of this amendment to the Constitution of Oklahoma is being contested by Muncer Awad, a Muslim resident of the state. US District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a temporary restraining order that prevents the amendment from taking effect until after a hearing in her court on November 22.

1. What would be the effect of this amendment, if upheld?
Decisions of foreign courts are never binding on American courts. However, sometime American judges will cite foreign decisions or foreign laws to shed light upon some contested question. Since American common law stems from Britain, British laws and decisions are cited more often than any other. (1) Since "international law" generally applies to the acts of nations, rather than individuals or corporations, it would be very rare for a state court to apply international law, even without Proposition 775. Thus, the first sentence of the Proposition would have virtually no effect on jurisprudence in Oklahoma.
It is possible that a dispute between two or more Muslims in Oklahoma could be settled by binding arbitration, with agreement by all parties that the arbitrator decide according to Sharia (Islamic) law. If so, an Oklahoma judge may have to enforce a ruling by such an arbitrator. The amendment would not bar this from happening, since the judge would not be considering the ruling in the light of Sharia, but merely enforcing an agreement for binding arbitration. The same would be true of a dispute between Jews in the state being arbitrated by a "Beth Din."
The amendment would foreclose the possibility of Oklahoma adopting legislation that would criminalize the sale of food forbidden by Muslim law that was advertised as compliant under such law (bilal), since a judge would have to consider Sharia in deciding whether a particular piece of meat was "kosher for Muslims" or not (2). Since Muslims comprise less than one percent of the population of Oklahoma, laws of this type are not likely to pass anyway.

2.Does Proposition 755 violate the US Bill of Rights?
Plaintiff Awad claims that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, but I say he is wrong. Actually, the amendment forbids the establishment of Islam in Oklahoma, which is forbidden by the First Amendment to the US Constitution anyway. Prop 755 does nothing to bar the "free exercise" of religious rights by Muslims (or anyone else).
However, it just might run afoul of the "Equal Protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, since it specifically bars courts from considering Sharia, while (by implication) permitting courts to consider Biblical, Talmudic or other religious-based canons of law. The authors of the amendment could have easily avoided the Equal Protection problem by barring courts from "considering or using any foreign or religious law." But they chose to single-out Sharia.

3. Then why amend the Constitution of Oklahoma in this way?
My guess is that the authors of Proposition 755 did not care if state courts applied principles of Christian or Jewish law, but wanted to show their special hostility to Islam. As noted in our posting titled "Vilifying Islam", there is a lot not to like about Islam. Apparently the 70% of Oklahoma voters who approved 755 November 2 agreed. This can be fairly termed "Islam-bashing."

Although I would not want to live under Sharia myself, I consider the prospect of American courts imposing it on us so remote as to be absurd. How would we feel if the Wisconsin legislature passed an amendment to forbid our state courts from "considering or using the Talmud" in rendering decisions? Would we be relieved that our judges were not going to base their rulings on Nzikin(3), or would we consider singling-out of the Talmud to be anti-Semitic? Ask ADL!(4)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) A decision on capital punishment of minors referred to the practices of foreign courts that considered the execution of minors a violation of human rights.

(2) The State of New York prohibits sale of treif as kosher.

(3) The book of the Talmud that deals with damages.

(4) Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith, a national organization devoted to exposing and fighting anti-Semitism.

Hijab in Court?

"A judge in ...Georgia barred a Muslim woman from entering a courtroom because she would not remove her headscarf."
Associated Press

In a similar case, another Muslim woman was jailed after she "uttered an expletive" when barred from a courtroom in suburban Atlanta for refusing to remove her "hijab" (headscarf). In Michigan, a Muslim woman's case was dismissed when she refused to remove her veil for the trial.

Apparently some states and counties bar all headgear in their courtrooms, while others permit both hijabs and kipas (skullcaps). Older readers will recall that in 1969 Federal Judge Julius J Hoffman ordered witness Arthur Waskow to remove his kipa while testifying in the Chicago Seven Trial, but backed down when US Attorney Thomas Foran asserted that the Government had no objection to the headcovering. On the other hand, Rabbi Jacob Twerski (1899-1973) was permitted to wear a kipa while testifying in Milwaukee County courtrooms on several occasions.

Obviously, courthouse authorities have the right to bar weapons from the building, and everyone (except police) may be sent through metal-detectors, just like airline passengers. I have been required to remove my hat, but not my kipa, at security checkpoints both at the Airport and the Courthouse in Milwaukee County. Jewish women have been required to remove their "tichels" for security inspections, but wigs seem to pass muster undetected.

If a woman passes through the metal-detector without triggering an alarm, I do not understand why she should have to remove her headcovering, whether a tichel, wig, or hijab. The same would apply to a kipa. The possibility of smuggling a non-metallic weapon under one of these headcoverings is so remote that I do not believe that requiring the covering to be removed is justified.

In the Chicago case cited above security was not an issue, and I suspect that it is not the real reason that some judges and sheriffs are banning headgear in courtrooms today. I contend that the real reason is cultural: the authorities consider it disrespectful to the court to wear anything on one's head. This reflects the Protestant custom of appearing in church bare-headed. (1) But today America is a diverse society that includes Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and many other non-Christians who have legitimate reasons for covering their heads at all times, including when in a public building. As long as the headgear is not being used to conceal a weapon, it should be permitted in courtrooms.

Jews and Muslims are poles apart on the issue of US support of Israel. Yet, both are religious minorities in this country, and have a common interest in fostering public policies that are fair to adherents of all religions, as well as to non-believers. I would be willing to work with Muslims and others for this purpose; how about you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Catholic priests cover their heads during services, but other men do not.

Why Target Jews?

"Muslims hate Jews because the Jews killed Muhammad."
John Foster Dulles, US Secretary of State (1953-58)

"Islam is a religion of Peace."
President George W Bush

The massacres in Mumbai (formerly Bombay), India, last week stunned and horrified the world. From the lone surviving terrorist Indian authorities have learned that the carnage was the work of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Muslim extremist group operating in Pakistan with ties to Al Qaida. Although created by Pakistani intelligence to fight against Indian rule in Kashmir, the group was banned by Pakistan in 2002. (1)

Pakistani leaders have denied any responsibility for the attack, and I believe them. The current government is pro-Western, and has tried to improve relations with India. The unfortunate truth is that the government of Pakistan does not control large sectors of its own territory (especially those bordering Afghanistan), and disloyal soldiers in its own army are allied with the terrorists.

Apparently, there were only about ten killers (2) in the gang that attacked Mumbai, yet they managed to kill at least 174 people, wounded hundreds more, and almost destroyed the Taj Mahal Hotel. Most of the target buildings were filled with hundreds or even thousands of people: a train station, major hotel, and a cafe. If the Lushkar terrorists were trying to kill as many people as possible, why send two of them (about 20% of the strike force) to the Chabad House, where there were only about eleven people (3) ?

I contend that Lashkar leaders had a special goal of killing Jews, worth far more to them than much larger numbers of other victims. This is part of a pattern seen in other Al Qaida-related attacks on Jewish targets in Tunis and Istanbul. One of the reasons that the World Trade Center in New York was targeted on Sept. 11, 2001, was that Arab terrorists knew that thousands of Jews worked there. (4)

Some may attribute the lethal hatred toward Jews among Muslims to the "Palestine Question," but I believe that the Israel-Arab dispute is only part of the motivation. For the source of this hatred, let us look into the book that all Muslims venerate: The Quran. (5)

For example, verse 2:61 states "They (the Jews) disbelieved in Allah's revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully." The Quran goes on to speak of punishing the Jews for usury and cheating people out of their money in verse 4:161 : " We have prepared a painful punishment." Verse 5:60 says that Allah transformed some Jews into "apes and pigs" to punish them for violating the Covenant. Books of quotations of Muhammad (hadiths) written after his death include orders to "Kill any Jew who falls into your power!"

Although not all Muslims are devout, those who join jihadist groups like Lashkar most certainly are, and they take the words of the Quran as a literal guide to life. These quotations, and similar ones from the Quran and the hadiths, have been used by Muslim preachers to incite hatred toward the Jews, the State of Israel, and by extension, those who befriend the Jews.

It is only fair to note that the New Testament portrays Jews who did not accept Jesus, especially community leaders (the Pharisees), as responsible for his crucifixion. Christians have persecuted Jews for two thousand years because of this . Although Nazism was not a Christian doctrine, there can be no doubt that Christian anti-Semitism inculcated the hostility toward the Jews of Europe that enabled Christians to carry out Nazi orders without guilt.

Since the end of World War II, major Christian denominations (especially the Catholic Church) have downplayed the Jews' role in the Crucifixion, and condemn anti-Semitism. This transformation has not occurred in the Muslim world, however, and the ancient verses of the Quran that denigrate the Jews continue to motivate the criminal acts we see today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Associated Press, December 1, 2008.

(2) Nine were killed, and one was captured. It is possible that some terrorists escaped.

(3) Including the nanny and the boy she saved.

(4) Most people who worked at WTC escaped before the towers collapsed, but hundreds of NY firefighters (of whom very few were Jewish) were killed when they fell.

(5) All the Quaranic verses quoted here are translations from The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History by Andrew G Bostom (Prometheus Books).

Dealing With Disruption

"This is still a free country.
Some of you may not like it that way, but it still is!"
Governor Nelson Rockefeller responding to thunderous booing at the Republican National Convention in 1964.

During the next few years President Lyndon Johnson and officials of his administration could not speak at any college (except military academies) without being shouted down. Vice President Hubert Humphrey was interrupted by shouts of "Dump the Hump!" at almost every public speech in the 1968 presidential campaign. And recently neo-conservative speaker David Horowitz was interrupted and insulted while trying to speak on "Islamo-fascism" (1) at the University of Wisconsin -Milwaukee (UWM). According to Horowitz, the reception at UWM was the worst he had ever experienced.

About a week before the speech Horowitz had bought an advertisement in the UWM Post (a student newspaper) in which he lambasted the local chapter of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, a jihadist group started in Egypt which also spawned Hamas. The MSA responded with a hand-out featuring a cartoon of Horowitz with a typically-Jewish hooked nose (not his real appearance) and wearing a Nazi-style armband labeled "H" in place of the swastika. It accused Horowitz of being a "rightwing hate monger" and "Judeofascist" . The screed urged readers to attend the Horowitz speech, facetiously promising that "Flaming crosses and Stars of David will be supplied to those who arrive early. Join the crusade!"

Since the audience had to pass through airport-style security checkpoints, flaming crosses were nowhere in sight. However, when the speaker entered the room, he was greeted with a chorus of boos among the applause and cheers. Several officers of UWM campus police were on hand, but apparently their orders were just to prevent violence and damage to university property.

After Horowitz was introduced by a leader of the UWM Conservative Union, which had invited him, he was left alone to deal with the raucous crowd. Despite his offer to answer questions after the talk, he was interrupted with catcalls and insults repeatedly. A microphone was provided for those who wished to ask questions, but most of those who used it merely berated and insulted the speaker. Eventually, several noisy young people were thrown out, but there always seemed to be plenty of protesters left.

In retrospect, this was a predictable travesty, especially in view of numerous hostile shouts during the Walid Shoebat speech on December 4, 2007, also sponsored by the Conservative Union. Then UWM Professor Shale Horowitz was put in charge of the question period, but he could not control the situation. (2)

Whenever a controversial speaker's appearance is made "free and open to the public", you can count on hostile people attending. The publication of the ad attacking MSA just a few days before the event was probably intended to spur publicity and attendance, and provoke a newsworthy confrontation. The MSA leadership could have ignored the whole thing, in which case the audience for Horowitz would have been about 25% smaller, and the event would have drawn far less attention. Although MSA is hostile to David Horowitz, the group is more than willing to play its assigned role in making the author/speaker more newsworthy and important than he would be otherwise. These confrontations help Horowitz generate more speaking gigs and command higher fees. The MSA was baited, and they gladly bit the bait!

The Conservative Union learned nothing from the Shoebat event. When a hostile audience is expected, the sponsoring group should not leave the speaker alone to contend with a raucous crowd. Rather, the group should designate a capable Program Manager to deal with disrupters while the speaker concentrates on delivering the speech. Ideally, the Program Manager should be someone with a commanding presence, with the power to eject anyone making trouble . Sheriff David Clarke would have been a perfect choice for this role, especially if he had a few deputies with him. Leaving the 69-year old Horowitz to deal with the problem on his own was the worst possible strategy.

It was obvious all along that providing a microphone for questions would simply give the disrupters a louder voice for their insults. When Nonie Darwish (3) spoke at Cardinal Stritch University in October, 2006, all questions had to submitted in writing to the Program Manager (me), who then read them to the invited speaker. There was only one interruption, and the man who caused it was promptly ejected.

I support the vigorous and lively exchange of ideas, especially on the college campus. I have personally attended many speeches by men that I did not agree with, including George Lincoln Rockwell, George Wallace, and Robert Welch. It is regrettable that some people think that their freedom of speech includes the freedom to stop others from hearing a message that they do not like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) "Islamo-fascism" is a kind of fascism in the same sense that a computer-mouse is a kind of mouse. Real fascism calls for utlimate allegiance to the State, not to one's religion. I prefer " jihadism."

(2)See the Glazerbeam of December 5, 2007.

(3) The daughter of an Egyptian terrorist, she converted to Christianity and now defends Israel in speeches and a book. Even though Stritch was a must more friendly venue for her message than UWM, the precautions taken against "hijacking the event" by protesters were justified