Steve Chapman: Shariah Charade
12 June 2012
13 Comments
by Steve Chapman (Chicago Tribune)
In the 19th century, Catholicism was regarded by many people in this country as thoroughly incompatible with Americanism. They saw it as a hostile foreign element that would subvert democracy. Today, a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court are Catholic, and they are taken to be as American as Mountain Dew.
We’ve come a long way in religious tolerance. Or maybe not. The belief that Catholics are irredeemably alien and disloyal has given way to the fear that Muslims pose a mortal threat to our way of life.
That distrust is behind a push in state legislatures to forbid courts from applying Islamic Shariah law in any case. Arizona, Tennessee, Louisiana and Oklahoma have passed these bans, though the Oklahoma law was ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.
In May, Kansas enacted its version, which doesn’t mention Shariah but prohibits state courts from basing decisions on any foreign laws or other legal codes. The point, however, is not in doubt. One supporter said the bill, which passed 122-0 in the House of Representatives, was needed because “they stone women to death in countries that have Shariah law.”
Does that mean we need anti-Shariah laws to keep women from being stoned to death with the cheerful blessing of American courts? Amazingly, no. It seems that our laws and Constitution take precedence on American soil no matter what the rules are in Iran.
The chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Peggy Mast, explained, “I want to make sure people understand there’s sometimes a conflict between other laws and the Constitution, and we need to assert our Constitution is still the law of the land.” That’s like asserting that the sun is hot: It will be true regardless.
The change will have about as much effect in Kansas as a ban on indoor co-ed field hockey. It turns out no one has been able to find a case where a Kansas court has actually employed Islamic strictures to reach a verdict.
If, for instance, a Muslim man marries a Muslim woman and then tries to divorce her by saying “I divorce you” three times, in accordance with Shariah, he will find he’s wasted his breath. State marriage law will govern in Kansas just as it has in other states when it conflicts with the dictates of Islam.
The problem with banning any consideration of Islamic law is that it interferes with the religious rights of Americans. If two Jewish merchants have a contract that calls for arbitration of disputes in a rabbinical court, state courts will generally enforce any judgment.
If a Muslim-owned company wants to lend or borrow money in accordance with the Islamic ban on interest, its choice should likewise be respected. If a Muslim wants to allocate his estate according to Islamic rules, what’s it to you? Outlawing such accommodation for Islam would illegally discriminate against one religion.
That problem is what led a federal appeals court to overturn the Oklahoma ban, overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2010 as an amendment to the state Constitution. The measure was a drone missile targeted specifically at Islam, in brazen defiance of the First Amendment.
Original post: Shariah charade
seriously, this again. do people really read these articles and nod their heads in agreeance?
“which doesn’t mention Shariah but prohibits state courts from basing decisions on any foreign laws or other legal codes.” so how does that not sound like good law to the author?
“The problem with banning any consideration of Islamic law is that it interferes with the religious rights of Americans.” no it bans all religious law from american courts. again how is that a bad thing. and how does it interfere with their religious rights. unless they do actully plan on stoning poeple to death per their god’s orders?
“If a Muslim-owned company wants to lend or borrow money in accordance with the Islamic ban on interest, its choice should likewise be respected.” you can write a contract to lend money anyway you want as long as it doesn’t have criminal usury in it. which of course no interest is about as far from criminal usury as you can get. this guy maybe close to a moron.
“The change will have about as much effect in Kansas as a ban on indoor co-ed field hockey. It turns out no one has been able to find a case where a Kansas court has actually employed Islamic strictures to reach a verdict.” so why worry about the law. but again what is wrong with forward thinking? see new jersy case.
“If, for instance, a Muslim man marries a Muslim woman and then tries to divorce her by saying “I divorce you” three times, in accordance with Shariah, he will find he’s wasted his breath. State marriage law will govern in Kansas just as it has in other states when it conflicts with the dictates of Islam.” lol. not sure western muslim even go by that fiqh. but the problem that is most likely to come from sharia is in inheritance law. and muslim argue that it is in family court that they wish for sharia to be considered.
“If a Muslim wants to allocate his estate according to Islamic rules, what’s it to you?” nothing. but if my sister marrys a muslim, has a boy and a girl and the parents die without a will, it may mean something to my niece.
“Outlawing such accommodation for Islam would illegally discriminate against one religion.” the spin is unbelievable. he starts with it doesn’t mention sharia? the law doesn’t “discriminate against one religion.”, it says no religious or foreign law will supercede american law. again how can anyone be against that!!!!!
“The measure was a drone missile targeted specifically at Islam, in brazen defiance of the First Amendment.” again he starts with it doesn’t mention sharia? again how is it “targeted specifically at Islam”? drone missle is great imagery. i guess when your article lacks facts you need to play on people’s emotions.
could they not link to the actual law? i would never take this guys word for anything. and could ya’ll come up with some other deflective comparison then the catholics and the jews. neither of whom’s crazy laws should be anywhere near american courts. suprised he didn’t mention the crusades. lmfao
12 June 2012 at 5:53 pm