Muslims are complaining of what they
consider are frivolous legislative bills meant to spread fears and sow
suspicion of their religion in a nation divided. But supporters of state proposals to prevent
Islamic code from being used in American courts argue they aren’t overtly
anti-Muslim and are needed to safeguard constitutional rights for average Americans.
The bills, variations of which have
been around for years, don’t specifically seek to ban Islamic law, known as
Shariah, even though some lawmakers concede that’s their intent. Instead, the proposals broadly call for
banning the application of any foreign law, legal code or legal system that
doesn’t grant the same rights and privileges as the state or U.S. Constitutions.
“I believe very strongly in the values
of America to allow for religious freedom,” said Connecticut State Rep. Robert
Sampson, a Republican sponsor of a bill.
“I just don’t want our court system to start using what is religious law
from other countries to make decisions. I’d
like to preserve our way of life.”
Muslim leaders say the bills are among
a range of proposals and decisions at all levels of government that they’re
gearing up to fight this year, from President Donald Trump’s travel ban to
local planning and zoning rulings against mosque projects. “These are thinly veiled attempts to alienate
Muslims in America,” said Hazem Bata, of The Islamic Society of North America,
based in Indiana.
Bills have been introduced in at least
13-states – a number that will likely grow as the legislative year progresses –
said Jonathan Griffin, of the National Conference of State Legislatures … who
has been tracking the proposals. Anywhere
from 15 to 30-states see the proposal introduced in a given year, he said. 10-states already have some version of them on
the books since they started cropping up around 2010.
While many of this year’s bills likely
won’t become law, they’re gaining traction early in Montana and Arkansas, where
the legislatures are poised to approve bills and send them to the governors
this month.
Supporters point to a 2014 report by
the Center for Security Policy (a conservative think tank) whose critics deride
as anti-Muslim, cites nearly 150-cases in which it says Shariah played a role. The cases, some of which date to the late
1970s, mostly involve divorce, child custody and other family law proceedings …
where either the plaintiff or defendants invoked Islamic laws and customs … to make
their case.
“Shariah should be very concerning to
all of us,” said State Rep. Heidi Sampson, a Maine Republican who has proposed
legislation. “It is a way of life and a legal
code which is designed to impinge on culture, family life, marriage, equality
of the sexes — a whole host of areas.” Sampson
and other lawmakers say a 2010 New Jersey case highlighted prominently in the
report is particularly troubling:
A
Muslim woman accused her husband of sexual abuse and sought a restraining order
in 2009, but the judge denied the request after the husband argued, in part,
that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands in Islamic custom. An appeals court ultimately overturned the
ruling.
But Will Smiley, an editor at the
Harvard Law School’s SHARIAsource, an online collection of academic writings on
Islamic law, is skeptical the bills proposed by lawmakers would have made a
difference in the initial ruling. “These
new laws don’t provide any new safeguards,” Smiley said. “Courts can still make mistakes, like most
observers agree that New Jersey court did.”
Many of the other cases cited in the
center’s report don’t appear to show evidence that U.S. courts based decisions
on Shariah or other foreign codes, said Jay Wexler, a professor at Boston
University’s School of Law who specializes in separation of church and state issues. “The facts of a case might require a court to
consider in some way a foreign custom or law,” he said. “But that does not mean that the court is
applying foreign law.”
Opponents maintain the bills as
proposed don’t serve any practical purpose.
“The U.S. legal code already states that American courts can only adhere
to American laws,” said John Robbins, Executive Director of the Massachusetts chapter
of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
“It’s a stupid solution to a nonexistent problem.”
Supporters stress the proposals would
impact all religious codes and foreign laws equally. If parts of Jewish, Christian or other laws
ran counter to fundamental constitutional rights, they too would not be
applicable in U.S. courts, said Montana State Sen. Keith Regier, a Republican. “They’re saying it’s hateful, and I have no
idea where they’re getting that from,” he said of opponents. “Read the bill and tell me what is hateful or
distasteful in there.”
Sorry folks, but I (for one) don’t
trust many of the judges who are legislating from the bench and not strictly
following U.S. laws. How about you? Do you have reason to believe all judges rule
exclusively by the laws of the U.S.? If
you do, I have some land that may interest you … with a bridge over it!
Rev.
Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain
(Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor,
Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel
