Muslims See ‘Foreign Law’ Bill as Attack on Shariah

Andrea Billups, Washington Times, August 22, 2011

A national drive against citing “foreign” laws in U.S. courts–one that critics say is a veiled attack on Islamic Shariah law–has reached the state with the nation’s largest concentration of Muslims.

The Michigan bill, which mirrors “American Laws for American Courts” legislation introduced in more than 20 other states, was introduced in June by state Rep. Dave Agema, Grandville Republican. He has argued that it has nothing to do with Islam or the faith’s Koran-based Shariah law, but is designed to stop anyone who seeks to invoke a foreign law in state courts.

Mr. Agema’s proposal has not made it out of committee, but still has raised cries of racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia from groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Michigan chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Council of American-Islamic Relations, which have threatened to file a lawsuit if state lawmakers approve the measure.

“If anybody has a problem with this, that means they don’t agree with U.S. laws,” Mr. Agema told the Detroit News. “If they don’t want it passed, then they have an ulterior agenda. It shows the people accusing me of bigotry are guilty of it themselves.”

{snip}

Victor Begg, a Republican and senior adviser to the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan, calls the legislation “hogwash” and said it is clear there is an underlying agenda. He suggested that such measures moving through more than 20 states are part of an organized and well-funded “witch hunt” and that Islam and Muslim-Americans are the real targets.

“We are appalled that our elected officials would waste their time on something that is unnecessary,” Mr. Begg said, noting Michigan’s economic woes, including one of the nation’s highest jobless rates.

{snip}

Voters in Oklahoma overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment in November that bans the use of Islamic law in court. In June, Tennessee enacted a law that, as originally written, would have empowered the state attorney general to designate Islamic groups suspected of terrorist activity as “Shariah organizations.”

{snip}

A study by the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., looked at 50 appellate cases from 23 states and found that Shariah law had been applied or formally recognized in court decisions.

{snip}

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    Encroachment can be subtle. Just look at how much immigration has changed the country since 1965, with little argument or fanfare.

    Resistance needn’t be subtle. Passing no-Sharia laws is a unequivocal way of telling the invaders from the East they aren’t welcome here.

  • sbuffalonative

    Chris Mathews is fond of mocking conseratives over their claims and fear that Muslims want Shariah Law in the US.

    It’s odd that the Council of Islamic Organizations is speaking out against this law. It’s almost as if Muslims do want to impose Shariah Law in the US.

  • Question Diversity

    Art IV Sec IV of the Constitution:

    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

    By “Republican,” they don’t mean the political party.

    Shari’ah Law as a matter of legal jurisprudence in any state would be abrogating the republican form of government in that state. Not only do the Federal courts have no grounds to fight state level anti-Shari’ah efforts, they’re actually required to encourage them.

    As an aside, the ADL, AJC and Elena Kagan have all come out for Shari’ah Law in the United States.

  • Tusky

    Good progress in Michigan and Oklahoma, yet in New Jersey the governor just appointed a muslim Attorney General, an obvious conflict of interest situation.

    Tusky

  • CDE

    I can’t believe this is even an issue. How is it that anyone can be for Sharia Law? There have already been honor killings in several places in the US. The argument is that those instances were isolated cultural issues, not Sharia. Wait till homosexuals are executed and thieves have a hand cut off. Then the ACLU might change its position.

  • Kingoldby

    If Muslims didn’t want to impose Shariah law in the USA they would not care about this law.

    The fact that they do care says it all.

  • HH

    Well, this is about as transparent as the day is long, and I’m no rabid Islamophobe. Unless one actually has designs on instituting or invoking this Sharia law business, what could they possibly object to in this bill? These protests are embarrassingly see-through.

  • margaret

    “As an aside, the ADL, AJC and Elena Kagan have all come out for Shari’ah Law in the United States.”

    Why am I not surprised.

  • Duran Dahl

    3 — Question Diversity wrote at 7:33 PM on August 24:

    As an aside, the ADL, AJC and Elena Kagan have all come out for Shari’ah Law in the United States.

    There are two kinds of “Liberals,” those who are in on the game (Annihilate the White Race) and the useful idiots. The above mentioned groups (and individual) belong to the first group…and they are not alone. The traitors comprise at core, about two percent of the population. The last Revolutionary war was won via the efforts of about three percent of the population. Do the math and keep your powder dry!

  • Anonymous

    “If anybody has a problem with this, that means they don’t agree with U.S. laws,” Mr. Agema told the Detroit News. “If they don’t want it passed, then they have an ulterior agenda. It shows the people accusing me of bigotry are guilty of it themselves.”

    Who is this man, and why does he speak the truth. We need more like him.

  • Anonymous

    “Mr. Agema’s proposal has not made it out of committee, but still has raised cries of racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia from groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People…”

    Hey, all you Colored People! You DO realize that if you keep promoting Islam just because it’s non-white/anti-white, and if Sharia ever does get implemented in these United States, that all you Colored People can kiss goodbye your forty-ouncers, your Hennessey cocktails, your “piggy-feets” Soul Food, and your pork-fried won-ton Chinese take-out, right? You ARE aware that all that stuff will become “haram” (sinful) and therefore FORBIDDEN, right?

    Right?

  • J

    “American Laws for American Courts”

    That it might EVEN BE suggested than anything else applies is a just beyond belief.

  • Roger B. Taney

    Often, in our courts, it is necessary to understand the intent of a contract made in a foreign country. To understand that intent, one needs to understand the law of that foreign country, and judges will therefore, to a certain extent, be guided by the laws of a foreign country when deciding these cases.

    So when, for example, the contract made in a foreign country is a marriage contract, and the country in which that contract was made uses Sharia law, then judges will consider Sharia law.

    It’s not really reasonable to insist that judges never consider foreign law–to do so would put our businesses at a tremendous disadvantage when trying to enforce contracts. So if one wishes to keep Sharia law out of US courts, one must be specific, and create legislation specifically barring Sharia law. So far, to my knowledge, none of the legislation passed at the state level has been able to specifically mention Sharia law.

  • Bill R

    It’s NOT just sharia law. There is a big push on to recognize foreign laws, laws made by the European Union courts, and by resolutions made by the United Nations in our courts. It’s a blatant and back door attempt to abrogate our United States Constitution. Since we no longer trust our Federal Government to stand by the US Constitution, and especially with the treasonous bunch in the Senate and the usurper Obama on the throne, the individual States are passing laws to prevent the Feds and the US Supreme Court imposing foreign laws on the States. The ones who scream the loudest about these laws, ARE the ones who want to impose such laws on us and abrogate our Constitution. That would be the ADL, the NAACP, the UN and the Muslim organizations.

    Right now there is a treaty pending to abrogate the 2nd Amendment by forbidding trade in small arms. There is another UN (probably many) resolutions pending that would abrogate our 1st Amendment rights as to free speech and freedom of religious assembly and expression in the public venue. There are foreign courts who want to usurp our courts and try Americans in foreign courts for such things as violations of their speech laws, etc. It isn’t just about sharia.

  • the Soviet Republic of New Jersey

    If you don’t like it don’t come here.

    Separate but free.

  • Ben

    These people are not stupid.

    They know full well of the weaknesses of tolerance.

    The rhetoric and accusations are effective.

    But after demographics change then we’ll see some real intolerance.

  • flyingtiger

    It is a choice between the Sharia, that is laws invented by a mythical child molester, versus the American Constitution, which was inspired by God. There is no compromise.

  • June

    This could be construed as insanity, but I would not be a bit surprised if our government eventually adopts the law of these 10th century dwellers.

  • John

    “the American Civil Liberties Union and the Council of American-Islamic Relations, which have threatened to file a lawsuit if state lawmakers approve the measure.”

  • Josh Harlan

    Note the main complaint the Muslims have against the laws. They are wrong because Sharia law would never be cited. So why do they care so much? Only because they are lying. Every muslim is required to work to transform societies into Sharia societies. Some other religions from the Middle East have tried the same thing with success.

  • Question Diversity

    8, 9 et al.:

    There’s a reason why I mentioned the ADL/AJC/Kagan support for Shari’ah Law in the United States. I wanted to hear some reactions to my statement, to see if anyone groks why I said it, what is my fundamental point. I’ll wait for a few more reactions.

  • margaret

    Speaking of sharia law

    Muslim Brotherhood to Ban Skimpy Bikinis and Alcohol?

    According to The Media Line, the Sharia law regulations are aimed primarily at westernized, sunbathing tourists:

    Egypt’s tourism industry has suffered a severe blow since the outburst of anti-regime demonstrations in January. But that did not stop the Freedom and Justice Party, the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, from demanding stricter regulations over what tourists can do and wear while visiting the country. The party is urging officials to ban skimpy swimwear and the consumption of alcohol on Egyptian streets.

    “Beach tourism must take the values and norms of our society into account,” Muhammad Saad Al-Katatny, secretary-general of Freedom and Justice, told Egyptian tourism officials. “We must place regulations on tourists wishing to visit Egypt, which we will announce in advance.”

    What will the ADL AJC ACLU NAACP SPLC etc do when Sharia law conflicts with the clothes (or lack of clothes) worn in the gay pride parades?

  • True Blue

    3,8,9,21, et. al.

    I understand their connection with eachother- the common thread between those you mentioned; but I was unaware of their united support for Shari’ah Law, and frankly I do not understand why they would. It would seem to be contrary to their overall agenda; unless they are nearly done using us as puppets and want us out of the way -riven with internal conflict.