Friday, April 16, 2021   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home » Mother Jones

Missouri Legislator Still Can’t Explain Why He Wants to Ban Sharia

20 April 2011 Mother Jones 5 Comments Email This Post Email This Post

By Tim Murphy| Wed Apr. 20, 2011

About a month ago, we told you about a bill before Missouri’s legislature to ban Islamic Sharia law from being enforced in state courts. The proposal, introduced by Republican state Rep. Paul Curtman, drew its language from the sample legislation drafted by David Yerushalmi, an Arizona-based attorney who has previously called for Muslims to be deported. Since the beginning of 2009, two dozen states have considered proposals to ban Sharia, many of which have borrowed Yerushalmi’s language.

Yesterday, the Missouri bill passed out of committee in the House, after a heated debate. PerKMOX:

“This bill will go to court and you are wasting your ink on this paper. Because this will not be upheld in court,” [Democratic Rep. Jamilah] Nasheed said Tuesday. “You’re wasting your time gentleman. You’re wasting your time in this body.”

Nasheed called on Curtman to provide a list of cases in which international law had been used in American courts but Curtman was unable to provide an example of such a case.

Why should that sound familiar? Because this exact same scenario unfolded in March, when Curtman held a press conference unveil the bill. Here was his response then when a reporter asked for examples:

“I don’t have the specifics with me right now but if you go to—the web address kind of escapes my mind right now. Any Google search on international law used in the state courts in the U.S. is going to turn up some cases for you.”

Original post: Missouri Legislator Still Can’t Explain Why He Wants to Ban Sharia


  1. preemption: action taken to check or prevent other action beforehand.

  2. Hardly an example of sharia law being forced down someones throat, mike.

    Since the first amendment bans the legislation of religious law, those harping about sharia law are blowing a lot of hot racist smoke.

  3. james, you’re right it’s not an example of sharia being forced down anyone’s throat. it’s an example of the difficulties that will insue as we, as a modern society, try to make accomidations for every religous tradition in the world. i agree we don’t need legislation to ban sharia, or any religion law as long as the religious law doesn’t contradict american law. unfortunately some american laws are already poorly written and frequently only say “reasonable accomidations” must be made.

    so james, what do you think should happen if a modest muslim woman is unconscious and has a medical emergency which requires her breasts to be exposed to a male doctor and her husband says that that is not allowable?

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>