The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20101129_12_0_OKLAHO975276 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20101129_12_0_OKLAHO975276)

If I understand this right (and I ask that one of you correct me if I'm wrong) he believes that SQ755 will forbid the state courts from adhering to the directives in his will - a will that reflects his religious beliefs in how his property and effects should be distributed as determined by Sharia law. 

I'm failing to see a real threat in what Awad alleges.

I don't really see how if someone's final wishes are in accordance with Sharia law that they would be any less admissable than the final wishes of someone under Hebrew law or Christian law.  You can form the basis of your will off any particular dogma you choose and the court will carry it out unless it violates civil law. 

Someone more learned than I might disagree.  If, in fact, Mr. Awad's will was written to be carried out per Sharia law a local probate court might well say they don't have proper jurisdiction to carry out the actions in hiw will or to rule on it with or without SQ 755.

Mr. Awad might be talking about the intention to disinherit a spouse, possibly in favor of an eldest son or something like that.  Under Oklahoma law it is perfectly legal for a person to disinherit his/her spouse by a will.  It does not affect the admissibility of the will to probate at all.  The disinherited spouse does, however, have the right to elect to take from the estate according to the law of intestate succession, setting aside the will to that extent, meaning that the spouse would receive at least one-third of the estate contrary to the wishes of the testator.

I don't know if Sharia would treat this issue differently, but I assume the difference lies somewhere in there.

Based on what I've read, it all seems too speculative.  I still don't see how the standing requirement is satisfied.  I'm not following the case closely enough to see whether the court has even addressed standing.

Shows what I know. I thought a will was a device devised to prevent the pitfalls of dying intestate (without a will, not without testicles or with a bad case of heartburn).  I was not aware that a spouse could automatically set aside being disinherited without mitigating circumstances (i.e. mental incapacity when written, forgery, etc).  It almost sounds, in some cases, that a will can create more doubt about succession and inheritance (and therefore claims and objections) than simple intestate laws do.

  Didn’t a local judge defer to church law (Presbyterian in this case) when Kirk of the Hills wanted to leave the synod but keep their church building? If I remember, Kirk had no clear legal title so the judge went with the internal church law that the building belonged to the Synod. The Synod prevailed and no one (except The Kirk) was upset
   Earlier (1993) some town in Florida passed a bunch of ordinances to prevent the Santeria religion from sacrificing chickens. The Supremes ruled 7 to 0 against the town that any laws affecting religion have to be neutral, of general application and be justified by a compelling government interest.. Since the ordinances were aimed at the Santerians only, they were deemed unconstitutional, by 7 to 0 no less.
    So it would seem to this lay person that our new constitutional amendment isn’t neutral, (aimed at Muslim church law only) wouldn’t be applied generally (or it would have applied to the Presbyterians church law) and isn’t justified by a compelling government interest since no case is even on the horizon.
 I see a long slog ahead for this one without much chance of success.