In France, young Muslims have been rioting for days—not about the age of retirement but in a display of hostility towards the French Republic; some are now describing this violence as "anti-French racism." In Holland, young Muslims riot incessantly and call out the vilest hate speech imaginable against America, Israel, Jews, Holland, and infidels—and yet Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, is still the one on trial for telling the truth about Islamic jihad because it offended some Muslims.

No, the Wilders trial is not yet over; three judges must first agree with both the defense and the prosecution who have both asked that all charges be dropped.

Meanwhile, in the United States, Juan Williams was just fired by NPR aka National Palestinian Radio for admitting that he, like so many others, including many Muslims, "feels" some trepidation when he sees Arabs in Islamic clothing board a plane.

But Americans face an even more serious danger than offended Muslims or foreign and home grown Muslim terrorists.

Contrary to many fears, sharia (Muslim religious law) cannot be imposed. It is unlikely that sharia law will overthrow American constitutional law or that American judges will issue rulings based on the Qur'an.

But here's what can happen; in fact, it is already happening.

Voters in Oklahoma will soon be voting on a "Save our State" bill which passed the Republican-controlled state legislature. The proposed Oklahoma legislation (State Question 775) is essentially a preemptive strike against the possibility that sharia law might become either an acceptable alternative to American law or that it will supersede it.

In 2004, in Oklahoma, the U.S. Justice Department helped a 6th grade girl win the right to wear hijab in public school. The Justice Department said: "No student should be forced to choose between following her faith and enjoying the benefits of a public education." Many Muslim Americans have used American law to argue for their right to wear hijab, receive special halal food, segregate a public swimming pool, obtain foot baths at universities, etc.

However, this is not the same as winning rights under sharia law and not the same as winning "sharia" rights. The argument concerns religious rights which are guaranteed by the American Constitution, at least according to Justice Department lawyers.

I support the Oklahoma legislation, especially since Muslim-American leaders, such as Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, of the Ground Zero mosque, has insisted that sharia is already compliant with American law.

However, he is lying. For example, polygamy, wife beating, marital rape, child marriage, the execution of apostates, the stoning of adulterers, special banking and dietary rules—are all compliant with sharia law, but not with the laws of the United States of America.

Since the issue of stealth jihad via lawsuit is real, it is important that we are accurate in describing how exactly this is being done.

Muslim activists have been using American law to win Muslim rights—and every religious and ethnic group before them has done so as well. Herein lies our problem. Americans are simply not ready to understand and wrestle with the fact that Islam is not a religion like other religions but is, rather, a theocratic political ideology and movement as well as a religion.

For example, Nimat Hafez Barazangi, born in Syria and currently living in Ithaca, New York, has used the American legal system to wrest some separate-but-equal gender justice for Muslim women and girls (and only for them, not for other groups of girls and women). I do not necessarily oppose such efforts, but they are far short of what Muslim women, even in Ithaca, probably need. Proudly, Barazangi reports how she used Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment to persuade Ithaca town officials to allow Muslim girls to swim separately from boys. However, she was unable to persuade Muslim families to allow their daughters and wives to swim at all.

Thus, while I also favor the radio ad campaign underwritten by Act for America on behalf of State Question 775, the radio spot is not entirely accurate. (Few radio spots are). It refers to a 2010 New Jersey decision in which a judge, based on his interpretation of American law, refused to issue a restraining order to a Muslim woman who alleged that her husband was beating and raping her. The judge said that the man had no "criminal…intent to sexually assault his wife"; rather, he was operating under a different belief system. But the New Jersey judge was not upholding Muslim religious (sharia) law and did not render this ruling as a Muslim religious judge. In any event, the ruling was overturned later the same year.

Guess what? Many, perhaps too many judges in America refuse to issue restraining orders in other cases where Muslims are not involved, and they also factor in "cultural" defenses, even of child abuse and murder. These defenses are sometimes heard as part of sentencing.

It is estimated that Muslims comprise less than 1 percent of the population of Oklahoma. Nevertheless, I wish I knew what exactly is going on in Oklahoma that has led state legislators Anthony Saxon and Rex Duncan to craft this referendum.