Sunday, April 11, 2021   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home » Huffington Post

Andrew Reinbach: Sharia Law Threat: Right-Wing Boogeyman

17 April 2011 Huffington Post 2 Comments Email This Post Email This Post

Frank Gaffney and his friends can relax: Sneaky Muslims aren’t going to impose Sharia Law on the US and take away their bacon cheeseburgers. It’s impossible.

But you’d never know that from what’s pouring out of outfits like Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, fromFox News or from right-wing bloggers across the land, all of whom say the threat is real — real enough to spawn 15 proposed state and federal laws against it.

Here’s how Gaffney described what he calls the threat to the New York Senate’s Homeland Security and Military Affairs Committee on April 8th: .”The threat…is best described, I believe, as a politico-legal-military threat whose express purpose is to have it imposed world-wide, subject to a theocratic ruler called a Caliph. That is of course a program that is completely at odds with our Constitution, our form of government, our way of life, our freedoms.”

I’ll admit that sounds pretty grim. Even if it does seem a lot like the threat of Global Communism I used to hear about as a kid.

The truth? Sharia is religious law, and no religious law can be imposed on the US without amending the Constitution — twice — to repeal both the opening clause of the First Amendment, and theSupremacy Clause in Article 6.

So how can Sharia Law be imposed on the US? No one seems to know. Or at least, nobody who’s pushing the claim would talk to me about it, though they seemed eager to tell me how bad it would be.

These non-talkers included Gaffney’s COO, Christina Brim, who even came to the phone to tell me she wouldn’t talk to me; Rex Duncan, who sponsored an Oklahoma law last year forbidding Sharia Law from being used in the state; Newt Gingrich (famously afraid of “Islamic atheists”); the Thomas More Center; and NewsMax, Town Hall, and The National Review magazines, all of which have been vocal about the so-called danger but wouldn’t explain why there’s anything to it..

Meanwhile, the so-called examples of how Sharia Law is already being used in American courts are frauds. Take a look at them and you find out what they’re talking about are arbitrations — not trials under civil or criminal law. And two parties in an arbitration can agree to be bound by Star Fleet regulations without crossing the Constitution.

This includes the most recent so-called example of Sharia law being imposed on America, in Tampa, where in late March a judge ruled that Sharia could be applied in an arbitration over money between two parties–from the same mosque–only to be overruled the next day by a higher court. That event triggered a frenzy in the right wing blogosphere — all, oddly, written almost exactly the same way.

The same goes for the so-called 85 Sharia Courts in England that are often raised as an example of how bad things already are: These are arbitration panels, conducted under the authority of the British courts — not Sharia law courts.

And in fact, similar arrangements are a long-standing commonplace in America jurisprudence — all of them operating under the authority of state and federal laws.

Until the 1920s, for instance, the legal system of the entire state of Utah was largely conducted in Bishop’s Courts, operating under the authority of the Church of Latter Day Saints — courts that are still in use in more limited ways. Native American reservations — actually, sovereign nations — govern themselves. So do religious communities like Kiryas Joel in Orange County, N.Y., a home to the Satmar sect of Hasidic Jews.

So what are Gaffney and friends talking about? No one knows, really. But that hasn’t stopped 15 laws forbidding international laws, including Sharia Law, from being put before state legislatures and the US House of Representatives.

That count includes Duncan’s Oklahoma law, which he called “…a first strike” to prevent something he admitted had never happened. That law was approved by 72 percent of Oklahoma voters in a referendum last November, but was then ruled unconstitutional under the First Amendment. It’s now on appeal.

In response to that objection the anti-Sharia folks merely edited their language to forbid international law from being considered in US courts and dropping the Sharia reference. This includes one before the US House of Representatives, H.R. 973, proposed by Florida’s Sandy Adams, whose office didn’t return calls requesting comment.

There’s only one problem here: Modern business is international, the parties to a contract can choose which laws govern their contract, and typically in any international deal, the laws that govern a contract include foreign laws.

So if, say, an Oklahoma company wanted to sell something to a company in Kuwait, Kuwati law could apply–and be honored in American courts, All these laws would do, says Avery Katz, who teaches contract law at Columbia Law School, is force the parties to conduct their business elsewhere–probably London, where the problem wouldn’t exist. But, he adds, this could add extra costs to the deal, which could kill it altogether.

So, what’s up here? You have to assume these lawmakers are smart guys. Certainly, Frank Gaffney and his ilk are smart guys. They have to know that as far as this issue goes, there’s no there there. So why are they bothering?

Well, ginning up an empty issue like this does several things for them.

One is the reality of the news business. Even in the 24-hour news cycle, there’s only 24 hours in a day, and every minute or column inch spent covering this is a minute or column inch not spent covering, say, how lobbyists are gutting the Dodds-Frank Bill and leaving the American financial system vulnerable to another disaster like 2007-2008.

Then there’s the politics. “It’s clearly an effort to stir the pot and keep the noise level up,” says Matt Duss, a policy analyst with the Center for American Progress. “They just have to keep people freaked out about this even though they know it can never happen, and the Democrats have to respond.”

And then, there’s the money. Right wing politics is a business with a simple business plan: Sell people the idea they’re under imminent threat, tell them you’re fighting to stop it, and ask them for money. It’s worked like a charm for the National Rifle Association.

Visit me at my website,

Original post: Andrew Reinbach: Sharia Law Threat: Right-Wing Boogeyman


  1. Those who oppose any application of so-called Sharia law in US courts are necessarily opposing liberty, the freedom of contracts which has been a hallmark of US jurisprudence.

  2. rjwalker, so you think that a male muslim should be able to say, i should inherit twice as much as my sister upon the death of our parents?

    [4.11] Allah enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females; then if they are more than two females, they shall have two-thirds of what the deceased has left, and if there is one, she shall have the half; and as for his parents, each of them shall have the sixth of what he has left if he has a child, but if he has no child and (only) his two parents inherit him, then his mother shall have the third; but if he has brothers, then his mother shall have the sixth after (the payment of) a bequest he may have bequeathed or a debt; your parents and your children, you know not which of them is the nearer to you in usefulness; this is an ordinance from Allah: Surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.

    the problem with sharia is that it states laws without contracts. if a woman marries a muslim man, she may not know that according to sharia the man is the maintainer of the family and therefore in the case of divorce the man automaticaly gets custody of the children. or is that not sharia???

    you say “so-called sharia” so there is no actual agreed upon sharia????? so why defend an undefined concept? if there is no such thing as sharia then why worry about it being outlawed?????

    but yes even freedom is limited. you can’t flog adults for fornication in your community because your god says so, and you adhear to god’s “divine writ” (sharia).

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>