It absolutely does not. Specifically Canon or Beth Din, do not hold the basis for the support or condoning of sedition. Sharia demands that itself be the higher law, while Beth Din demands that the law of the land be the higher law.
If someone can use Jewish ecclesiastical law to arbitrate, but they can't use Muslim ecclesiastical law to arbitrate, the law is favouring religions, or if you want unfavouring a religion. That, has been ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. There's even a test, called the Lemon Test.
And you fail the Lemon test Ton.
1, There is no religious intention behind the banning. The legislature didn't ban it in favour of Beth Din or Canon. It banned it in favour of enforcing the supremacy of Constitutional law. Where equality is the higher standard.
2, The banning of Sharia neither advances nor inhibits any religion. Islam is free to be practiced in the US. Sharia, is not part of the Quran. It is a separate interpretation of Allah's laws by men.
3, The banning does not create an entanglement of government, it actually goes the opposite way.
Hardly. As I already said, Beth Din and Canon, as practiced by their specific communities, do not tread on criminal territory, whereas Sharia does. Beth Din and Canon accept the higher authority of Constitutional law. Whereas Sharia does not recognize any higher authority.
In granting permission to Sharia law to operate as autonomously as Beth Din and Canon courts do, the legislature would be in fact, be granting a greater religious legal power to Islamic courts.
Obviously you can't choose which states laws you will adhere to.
Which Sharia, in it's most mildest intent, does. Sharia sees itself as the higher law. Beth Din and Canon Courts do not.
In your attempt to troll, I bet you never thought of that.
:lol:
Hardly...If I was trolling, I wouldn't have put as much effort into it.
Sharia has no foundation in the Quran. Canon, has written foundation in the Bible, Beth Din in the Talmud. Furthermore, because of its tenets, Sharia is a clear and present danger to Constitutional law. Whereas it recognizes the will of Allah is superior to any other law, by broad interpretation. As well as the use of violence to enact it. Beth Din and Canon recognize the supremacy of the Constitution and do not have any acts or tenets that condone the use of violence to enforce the rule of either law. Both Beth Din and Canon, are a community accepted arbitration, where Sharia seeks to reestablish itself as the higher law, by its own virtue.
You really should read Ironsides link.
Since Islamic law reflects the will of [Allah] rather than the will of a human lawmaker, it covers all areas of life and not simply those which are of interest to a secular state or society. It is not limited to questions of belief and religious practice, but also deals with criminal and constitution (sic) matters, as well as many other fields which in other societies would be regarded as the concern of the secular authorities. In an Islamic context there is no such thing as a separate secular authority and secular law, since religion and state are one. Essentially, the Islamic state as conceived by orthodox Muslims is a religious entity established under divine law.[5]
Besides all that, all that Oklahoma did was ban State Courts from using Sharia Law in rulings. Which is perfectly acceptable, since Beth Din is not enforced by the State.
