It wasn’t long ago that we were all assured that there is no future of Sharia being implemented in the United States. Groups like CAIR and ISNA work diligently to calm our fears and to ensure that we harbor no concern for what many have labeled creeping Sharia. There was a significant outcry against the recent ban of Sharia in Oklahoma, and other states have followed a similar path. Opponents of such ban claim it is simply “anti-Muslim,” and mock anyone who tries to express a concern that Sharia may take root in the United States.
Unfortunately, what happened in Europe is beginning to occur in the United States. Until recently, my favorite example of the implementation of Sharia was a court case in New Jersey. Judge Joseph Charles, denied a request for a restraining order on the basis of Islamic law. Because Sharia defines rape differently than United States law, Judge Charles ruled that a the plaintiff had not been raped and her assailant, her husband, was innocent of all charges. There is plenty of information about this case if you are inclined to do some research, but the long and short of it is that a sitting judge in a court that is charged with enforcing the laws of our country decided that Islamic law superseded the laws of our nation.
The biggest defense of this ruling is that Judge Charles did not apply Sharia law, but rather ruled based on the ignorance of the assailant. Because he was relatively new to the United States, they claim, he was not responsible for his illegal actions. Apparently these icons of tolerance believe that ignorance justifies rape. These defenders of moral relativism argue that the ruling was based on cultural standards, rather than Islamic law. Unfortunately, Islamic law is a cultural standard, and was exactly the standard by which Judge Charles ruled. Fortunately, this ruling was later overturned by a higher court.
This is no longer an isolated incident. Florida has joined the march towards Sharia. On February 23 of this year, a court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit issued an order which included a phrase which sets precedent for future cases that involve Sharia law.
1. This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.
By entering this phrase into the official rolls of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Judge Richard Nielson has effectively acknowledged the validity of Islamic law as a factor in the American judicial system. Unless this court order is somehow overturned or stricken from the record, unlikely in the current political environment, this provides exactly what is needed for Sharia to take root.
Arguments could be made that this court order simply recognizes that the plaintiffs and the defendant have chosen to resolve their dispute amongst themselves. Such arguments ignore the fact that the court, by virtue of its involvement, is complicit in the verdict. Such arguments also ignore the fact that an official court order which states that a case will proceed “under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law” inherently legitimizes and recognizes a system of law other than those by which our country is ruled.
Later in the document it is stated that the case will be presented to an Islamic judge if the parties involved cannot reach a resolution. This further legitimizes a system of law other than United States law, and gives authority to an Islamic judge who is not a part of our judicial system. To say this is not furthering the establishment of Sharia law is ridiculous.
The final nail in this proverbial coffin is the last clause of the court order.
3. The remainder of the hearing will be to determine whether Islamic dispute resolution procedures have been followed in this matter.
In other words, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit is now part of the mechanism of Sharia law in the United States. Not only will a sitting judge be ruling based on Sharia law as a defense, but he will be ruling on the proper application of Sharia law. He has effectively made the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit an extension of the system of Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.
Categories: World Events