Application of Sharia Laws. Awad v. Ziriax. Case Facts Essay

Application of Sharia Laws
(Munar Awad v. Paul Ziriax)
Name
Course
Professor's Name
Institution
Location
Date
Case Facts
Governments have, in the past, tried to use Sharia laws in solving domestic problems where necessary. Religious organizations had some properly set laws to help solve some cases they felt could take unnecessarily long times under normal court procedures. One popular case is on November 2, 2010, in Oklahoma, when they voted to support the changes in the law to restrict the government from moving to apply Sharia laws in government courts. Some did not believe in the proper applications of these laws and thought it would be better if they were handled through normal court procedures. The law stated that courts should only refer to federal laws, state laws, and the laws of other American states. However, it has not been actively applied due to a lawsuit. Other states have various limitations to this law, while some fully restrict the use of these laws in domestic courts (Schumaker 2012, p.4). The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the law just as critics have challenged certain recent proposed laws touching on worship clauses in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The existence of the Establishment clause restricts the state not to show preference among any of the religions, including non-religion. It allows every individual to accept and engage in their own chosen religion and supports actions made on behalf of religious rituals. According to Schumaker (2012, p.6), it also allows for the violation of laws within respective religious reasons. A bill prohibiting sharia laws could be challenged as disobedience to the Establishment clause by disapproving the consideration of Islamic religious laws. This essay discusses the approval of the rule within government jurisdictions.
Parties in the Case and their Position
Muna, the plaintiff, in this case, sued Paul Ziriax, who headed the state of Oklahoma commission for elections after they disobeyed the rules of the First Amendment. He sought an injunction to bar the state from certifying the results of the vote until his case was determined. Consultation of religious law, including Sharia, is relatively rare within the U. S and is conferred to situations where the government accommodates the religious needs of one individual. According to a legislative attorney, people accept laws passed in a secular fashion but revolt when it is a religious authority imposing a rule on them (Brougher 2011, p.6). The people were advocating for the separation of the church and excusing the state from accommodating specific religious practices.
The Procedural History and Appeals to the Case
On November 4, 2010, Munar Awad challenged the amendment. At that time, he was the executive director of an Islamic council in Oklahoma on November 8, 2010, after a motion for a temporary injunction and a restraining order that was temporary was granted. His claims justified as they violated the Free Exercise Clause, together with the Establishment Clause, which was in favor of Awad's case (Shumaker 2012, p.5). It violated Awad's First Amendment rights as an American citizen and the public demands for the protection and respect of these rights.
On J...