Michigan Bill Targets Sharia
13 August 2011
3 Comments
Michigan
Michigan Bill Targets Sharia
A state lawmaker wants Michigan to join the trend of states banning “foreign laws”, but Muslim activists say the effort is a thinly veiled attack on Islam.
Rep. Dave Agema, R-Grandville, is pushing a bill to bar the implementation of foreign laws. It doesn’t mention Sharia – Islamic law – but he acknowledged it would be prohibited in courts under the legislation intended to prevent anyone “who tries to shove any foreign law down our throats”.
“No foreign law shall supersede federal laws or constitution or state laws or constitution,” Agema said. “Our law is our law. I don’t like foreign entities telling us what to do.” Agema said his bill would protect the “vast majority” of Muslims, whom he contended “come to this country to get away from Sharia”.
The legislation comes at a time of heightened debate about Sharia, a set of religious rules governing personal conduct, family relationships and religious practice for Muslims. Critics fear Sharia could supersede civil law and have an impact on divorce and child custody cases, and similar legislation has been introduced in 25 states.
Some say the bills are unnecessary and pander to anti-Muslim paranoia. “Agema … is a reflection of a segment of the GOP that is openly xenophobic and Islamophobic,” said Dawud Walid, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Michigan chapter.
State Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit, plans to speak out about the bill during a press conference Tuesday in Midtown. Victor Begg, a prominent Republican and co-founder of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan, called the bill “appalling”. “Some in our party find it politically opportune to target my faith by sponsoring an innocuous sounding bill, knowing well that their intent is so-called ‘creeping Sharia,'” Begg said.
Agema called the criticism “hogwash”. “If anybody has a problem with this that means they don’t agree with U.S. laws,” he said. “If they don’t want it passed then they have an ulterior agenda.”
The sources of Shari’ah on the other hand, are permanent in character and may not be overruled on grounds of either rationality or the requirement of social conditions. There is, admittedly, a measure of flexibility in usul al-fiqh which allows for necessary adjustments in the law to accommodate social change. But in principle the Shari’ah and its sources can neither be abrogated nor subjected to limitations of time and circumstance. The role of the jurist and the mujtahid in usul al-fiqh is basically one of deduction and inference of rules which are already indicated on the sources, while this is not necessarily the case with regard to usul al-qanun. The Parliament or the legislative assembly of a Western state, being the sovereign authority, can abrogate an existing statute or introduce a new law as it may deem fit. The legislative organ of an Islamic state, on the other hand, cannot abrogate the Qur’an or the Sunnah, although it may abrogate a law which is based on maslahah or istihsan, etc. Abrogation is, on the whole, of a limited application to the definite rulings of divine revelation and has basically come to an end with the demise of the Prophet. [Cf. Badran, Usul., PP. 41-43]
http://www.faithinallah.org/principles-of-islamic-jurisprudence-introduction-to-usul-al-fiqh/
13 August 2011 at 9:13 pm