By Daniel Pipes
As Americans learn more about Islam, the aspect they find most objectionable is not its theology (such as whether Allah is God or not) nor its symbolism (such as an Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan) but its law code, called the Sharia. Rightly, they say no to a code that privileges Muslims over non-Muslims, men over women, and contains many elements inimical to modern life.
Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, gave the danger of Sharia unprecedented public attention in July when he blasted its “principles and punishments totally abhorrent to the Western world” and called for a federal law that “says no court anywhere in the United States under any circumstance is allowed to consider Sharia as a replacement for American law.”
Despite some stirrings in this direction, no such federal law exists. But legislatures in two states, Tennessee and Louisiana, recently passed laws effectively blocking applications of Sharia that violate existing laws and public policy. And, in a referendum on Nov. 2, the voters in Oklahoma likewise voted 70 to 30 percent to amend their state constitution.
Zuhdi Jasser of AIFD approves.
Although applauded by moderate Muslims such as Zuhdi Jasser, passage of the “Save Our State Amendment” alarmed Islamists. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, accurately accused of aiming “to overthrow constitutional government in the United States,” nevertheless convinced a federal district judge to impose a temporary restraining order on the state election board from certifying the amendment.
A full court hearing could helpfully stimulate further public debate over applying the Sharia. In this spirit, let’s look more closely at the just-passed Oklahoma amendment, State Question 755. It limits Oklahoma courts to relying exclusively “on federal and state law when deciding cases.” Conversely, it rejects “international law” in general and it specifically “forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law,” where it defines the latter as Islamic law “based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.”
Popular criticism of the amendment vacillates between two contradictory responses, claiming it’s either discriminatory or superfluous.
Discriminatory? While the wording is indeed problematic (international law cannot possibly be banned; and the Sharia should not be singled out by name), State Question 755 correctly insists that judges base their judgments solely on U.S. law. Contrary to rumor, the amendment does not ban Sharia outside the court system: Muslims may wash, pray, eat, drink, play, swim, woo, marry, reproduce, bequeath, etc., according to the tenets of their religion. Thus does the amendment not harm American Muslims.
Muneer Awad of CAIR disapproves.
Superfluous? No research informs us how often American judges rely on the Sharia to reach judgments but a provisional inquiry turns up 17 instances in 11 states. Perhaps most notorious is the New Jersey ruling that concerned a married Muslim couple from Morocco. The wife related that the husband repeatedly forced her to have sex on the grounds that, quoting him, “this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you.” In brief, the Muslim husband claimed Sharia sanction for raping his wife.
The trial judge agreed with him: “The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.” Based on that, the judge ruled in June 2009 that no sexual assault had been proven.
An appellate court reversed this ruling in July 2010, on the grounds that the husband’s “conduct in engaging in nonconsensual sexual intercourse was unquestionably knowing, regardless of his view that his religion permitted him to act as he did.” In Newt Gingrich’s more astringent analysis, the trial judge was “unwilling to impose American law on somebody who’s clearly abusing somebody.”
Then there looms the alarming example of Great Britain, where two of the country’s ranking figures, the archbishop of Canterbury and the lord chief justice, have endorsed a role for Sharia alongside British common law, and where a network of Sharia courts already operates.
Neither discriminatory nor superfluous, laws that banish the Sharia are essential to preserving the Constitutional order from what Barack Obama has called the “hateful ideologies of radical Islam.” The American Public Policy Alliance has crafted model legislation that Oklahoma’s and 47 other state legislatures should pass.
Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. Mr. Pipes founded the Middle East Forum (MEForum.org), an independent 501(c)3 organization, in 1994. The Forum's mission is "promoting American interests" through publications, research, media outreach, and public education. With a US$2 million budget, it publishes the Middle East Quarterly and sponsors Campus Watch, Islamist Watch, the Legal Project, and the Washington Project. 
Huzzah! Another fix for a non-existent problem! Maybe one day we can address job creation, foreclosures, energy independence, illegal wars… oh wait a sec. That’s right, those things are REAL!
Better to aim at phony nonexistent problems when you’re trying to stir up anger and fear among the uninformed. Reality is far more complicated and harder to explain to the typical hard-right yard ape.
The problem is when you move to disqualify one religion’s jurisprudence principles from American law, you set the precedent for removal of ALL religious influences… and that includes the Ten Commandments, the Catholic stance on abortion as “sin,” Nativity scenes in public buildings and all other vestiges of Judeo-Christian legal tradition.
Is that the real intent here? Or are you just setting us up so you can trot out the annual “Secular Humanists are out to Destroy Christmas!” canard?
I wouldn’t dismiss it as a non-existent problem. There are multiple occasions in which Sharia law collides with our current law. As Mr. Pipes pointed out, a NJ judge had previously acquitted a Muslim husband accused of forcing his wife to engage in sex. This kind of behavior is permitted under Islamic law. And the judge, taking that into account, placed US law subordinate to Sharia law.
Other judges in the past have also relied on Islamic law in deciding cases.
It’s worse in Europe. In Germany, for example, Muslim men have successfully used Sharia law in court to defend their right to beat their wives and to practice polygamy.
Was this law in Oklahoma necessary? I think you could make an argument either way, for now. The US isn’t as far along the road as Europe. But it does clearly put boundaries on political Islam.
How can you be ignorant enough to call it a non existent problem when there are 17 case laws from 11 states given in the article link. If a judge can order that rape is allowed because his religion allows it, then why wouldn’t they try to use that precedence for other instances of sharia law such as amputations, stonings, and hate crimes against other religions? Rape is only second to murder as far as its consequences in our country, and he was given a bye because of his religion in our courts.
“and that includes the Ten Commandments, the Catholic stance on abortion as “sin,” Nativity scenes in public buildings and all other vestiges of Judeo-Christian legal tradition.”
Not a thing you wrote here has anything to do with getting away with a horrible crime. Nativity scenes in public buildings compares to allowing rape? Catholics BELIEVING abortion is a sin? Catholics can believe it all they want just as muslims can believe that their wives can be raped at will. If a Catholic tried to use that belief in court as grounds to kill the doctor, and a judge allowed it, you can bet your ass there would be a law enacted disallowing Catholic religious doctrine in our courts. Problem is, there’s a difference in believing something, and successfully using it in American court 17 times so far to bypass laws that EVERYONE else has to follow.
Furthermore, if the law is unnecessary, then why the fight against it so hard? If the law just sits there and costs no one any money at all and serves only to let 70% of the entire state of Ok sleep better at night while not posing a threat or restricting any rights because the Constitution already covers it, then let it sit. I’m pretty damn sure though that if it wasn’t needed, and was covered by our laws already, then how did sharia slip through so many times already? And why such an uproar from CAIR, which has had over 15 members and its co-founder indicted for terrorism already, and whose leaders have been quoted in many different countries stating that they will try by whatever means to not only have sharia law, but fly an islamic flag above the white house. Im pretty sure even if it is unnecessary, which there is documented proof 17 times over that it IS necessary, it is the exact message that needs to be sent to that form of Islamic follower.
Up next: “California judge upholds Islamic man’s marriage to 9 year old girl after her parents signed consent. All because it is normal in their religion and prior country.”
Centeraz there to proudly sign as witness! Quoted as saying “Hey, Catholics let their underage children consume wine during communion, so what’s the difference…”