Down in Austin, Texas, the legislature has in its hopper, a law to keep Islam’s sharia law from being used in Texas. Such laws have cropped up in Alabama, New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, Nebraska, South Dakota, Missouri, Arkansas, Florida and possibly three other states but I have not been able to identify which ones.
Oklahoma passed a constitutional amendment against sharia law. It was approved by the citizens with a seventy percent majority. A good firm majority. Unfortunately, one Islamic gentleman filed a federal lawsuit against it. Federal judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange placed an injunction then later ruled it unconstitutional. It is supposed to violate his first amendment constitutional right of freedom of religion. The federal judge decided that sharia law “lacks a legal character” and “is not law.” She thought the state amendment “conveys a message of disapproval of plaintiff’s faith and, consequently, has the effect of inhibiting plaintiff’s religion.” You know, I would have thought since her impression of sharia law was that it is religious tradition, she would have seen the state amendment as OK. This amendment would have merely re-enforced a separation of “church and state” which our federal courts like to legislate for. Ah, the workings of the minds of federal judges and sometimes state judges baffles me. I guess I just don’t understand legalese and I definitely do not understand the thinking of federal judges. I guess it is because I was taught that the majority rule, but the federal jurisprudence system likes to rule that one person can stop the rule of the majority. That concept just doesn’t seem kosher to me.
Judge Miles-LaGrange thinks sharia law is not law but religious traditions. Maybe that is the reason our state department made a statement that the U. S. government recognizes Islam as a “religion of peace.” You know, I’ve never heard our presidents say that about Hinduism or Christianity or any other religion. Why say this about Islam? Why do they get special recognition? Our Presidents Obama and Bush have both described Islam as a religion of peace. Who are they brown-nosing?
United States House of Representative Tom Tancredo entered the “Jihad Prevention Act” H. R. 6975 into the second session of the 110 congress on September 18, 2008. It was a migration bill to prevent the immigration of radical Muslims. It was sent to committee but, being not acted on, it was cleared from the books when the current congressional session started.
Why are these states and a congressional representative doing this? Could it be that in 2009, the United Kingdom had 85 government recognized sharia courts? In 2007, there was one recognized by the government. Well, 2008, the Brits approved sharia courts recognized by the government under the 1996 arbitration Act. Thus, sharia courts could be a court of arbitration. These courts were set up under an umbrella group, Muslim Arbitration Tribunal. It started small and in a year had jumped to 85 courts in several cities.
These courts are given governmental sanction to arbitrate only divorce, family law, child custody and financial contracts. Yet, one stabbing was tried in sharia court. Now, this is the part I don’t understand. Perhaps some Brit will explain it to me. The sharia courts do not follow English common law. These courts proceed under sharia law, Islamic law.
I think Islam may have a wee bit more difficultly in the good old USA. The only way I can see that they could come into the U. S. justice system would be to claim that sharia law is not a religious law but merely governmental law for civil and criminal cases. If Islam claims it is both religious and civil, it has a problem. To accept sharia courts or attorneys that use sharia law, the federal government would be recognizing and promoting a religion. Thus, for the first time since 1776, we would have a government sanctioned religion. This would make Islam happy because they feel sharia law is above the U. S. Constitution. Interestingly, if they claim it is only secular law and not religious, it will again conflict with the U S Constitution which claims it to be the highest law in the land. This must be hard for the Muslims because they think, sharia law is the highest law in the world.
Perhaps this is a good time to ruminant on this quote of Samuel Adams, “If ever the time should come when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats of government, our country will stand in the need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” October 24, 1780.