NEW YORK, March 2 (Reuters) - As some 20 U.S. states consider legislation that would ban Islamic sharia law, a grassroots group is fighting back with a national campaign to defend religious freedom and dispel misconceptions about how Muslims in America observe their faith. The Islamic Circle of North America said Islamophobia had worsened after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States by al Qaeda islamists, perpetuated by a fear that U.S. Muslims practice strict sharia like countries such as Saudi Arabia. The group plans to hold sharia education conferences and town halls in 25 U.S. cities this year. Its campaign, "Defending Religious Freedom, Understanding Sharia," also includes a national hotline to answer questions, an advertising campaign and 20 seminars on colleges campuses. The Council on American-Islamic Relations says more than 20 states are mulling considering bans on the court use of sharia or international law. In addition, it said legislation has passed in Arizona, Texas, Louisiana and Tennessee, a measure was defeated in Virginia and bills expired in Utah, Wyoming, Arkansas and Maine. "This is a religious freedom issue, this is an American tradition, this is an American constitutional issue and Muslims are asking for the same thing that other religious groups are enjoying," said Zahid Bukhari, president of the Islamic Circle. Advocates for legislation banning sharia in U.S. courts often point to a 2009 New Jersey court ruling which denied a Muslim woman a restraining order against her husband whom she accused of beating and raping her. The judge acknowledged a clash between the man's religious beliefs -- that he could have sex with his wife whenever he wanted -- and U.S. criminal law. An appeals court overturned the decision in 2010, stating: "The judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State's statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken." ...the Islamic Circle of North America, founded in 1968, said sharia in the United States tended to be based on a moderate interpretation and that sharia required Muslims to obey laws of the country where they live. "Being a good Muslim means being a good citizen of that country," said Bukhari. Despite the discord over state bids to prohibit sharia or foreign law, the mood toward U.S. Muslims appears warmer. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt-usa-musliml2e8dtdab-20120301,0,2554661.story?page=1 Coming soon, to the city in which you live.
We have been slowly working to put online all of the articles from the print issues of The American Muslim published between 1989 and 1995. Recently, one such article Native American Courts: Precedent for an Islamic arbitral system by Issa Smith which was originally published in our 1993 print edition went online. This was quickly noticed by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, and his posting about the article provoked a number of Islamophobic postings on his site. Last years dispute over establishing Sharia arbitration courts for family law in Canada prompted so much controversy, that it ultimately led to the banning of all faith based arbitration in Canada. This years hysteria over a speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury was so heated that it comes as no surprise that there is such strong feeling about what seems like a non-issue. The Archbishop of Canterburys speech was certainly not treason, craven, bonkers, a reason to sack him, or as Christopher Hitchens has said, a reason to say To Hell With the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop certainly wasnt saying as John Gibson suggested on Fox News: What the archbishop was proposing in effect was the unfairness of Sharia law toward women be institutionalized for Muslim women under British law. And, the Archbishop is not as Robert Spencer called him, the Archdhimmi of Canterbury. As an American Muslim I would be opposed to any suggestion that Sharia replace our American legal system for American Muslims or any other Americans, and I would be the first to fight any such possibility. However, the inclusion of Sharia arbitration or alternative dispute resolution that might be utilized by Muslims who so choose after signing a binding arbitration agreement (signed by both parties in a dispute), or that might file an amicus brief with the court is not an alarming new idea. In fact, it is an existing option for religious communities. Any decision rendered by a tribunal or a panel of mediators is subject to appeal to the courts and must be consistent with American law and our Constitution. This is how the law already exists. The various anti-Sharia bills are based on the idea that they would prohibit certain provisions of foreign laws including Sharia law from being considered by a court if they do not afford the same liberties, rights and privileges guaranteed by the US Constitution. That is already the case. The existing laws of the U.S. and the Constitution of the U.S. are already the final arbiter. Unless Mr. Spencer and others who find this option so distasteful are also opposed to Halakha courts, then it would seem that this shows a streak of Islamophobia. HALAKHA Halakha (Hebrew, also transliterated as Halakhah, Halacha, Halakhot and Halachah) is the collective corpus of Jewish religious law, including biblical law (the 613 mitzvot) and later talmudic and rabbinic law as well as customs and traditions. Like the religious laws in many other cultures, Judaism classically draws no distinction in its laws between religious and non-religious life. Hence, Halakha guides not only religious practices and beliefs, but numerous aspects of day-to-day life. Historically, Halakha served many Jewish communities as an enforceable avenue of civil and religious law. In the modern era, Jewish citizens may be bound to Halakhah only by their voluntary consent. There are a number of halakha courts in America representing different interpretations of Jewish law Agudath Israel of America, Beth Din of America, etc. The Harvard Jewish Law Students Association held a conference on Law, Judaism, and the State which discussed such issues as: Is there a Jewish theory of the state? What is the relationship between the states authority and Jewish law? Is there a difference when the state is non-Jewish? What are the principles of Jewish criminal law and how did they function? How do the values reflected in Jewish criminal law compare with those in American law? What do we learn from a comparison between the two systems? Can we evaluate American criminal law through Jewish eyes? Jewish family law in the U.S. is a subject about which books have been written. The Pursuit of Justice and Jewish Law: Halakhic Perspectives on the Legal Profession (Second Edition) - Major topics examined from the perspective of Jewish law include: litigating in secular courts; the problems posed by professional confidentiality; the issues involved in aiding a client in a violation of either Jewish or American law; the ethics of cross examination and the obligations of a lawyer to pursue truth; the problems raised by working as a prosecutor or a defense attorney; practicing bankruptcy law; and the permissibility or obligation of informing on others for violating American law. The book also includes a full discussion of issues posed by family law (including an appendix addressing the 1992 New York Get Law); as well as a complete unit addressing the problems of business law, from usurious transactions to the ethics of negotiation and arbitration. These halakha courts are already functioning within the legal system of the U.S. Jewish divorce cases are sometimes handled by the Beth Din of America, the Jewish Religious Court who can issue a Get or Jewish permission for divorce. Under American law the procedures and rulings of Jewish law courts are treated just as any other produced by a legal arbitration hearing. The Beth Din of America issues statements on ethical issues such as stem cell research. There is a site where Halachic forms can be downloaded (e.g. Living will, financial forms, pre-nuptial agreements). There are sometimes differences between religious and constitutional law as for example the difference in American law and halakha law on the subject of self incrimination. In such cases the American legal system would ignore the rulings of the religious courts. For a Jewish courts arbitration to be binding in the U.S. the parties involved must sign a binding arbitration agreement. According to wikipedia The AIA takes sides on many political, religious, and social issues, primarily guided by its Moetzet Gedolei Hatorah. It uses these stances to advise its members, to lobby politicians, and to file amicus briefs. U.S. courts sometimes recognize the arbitration of Jewish religious courts and sometimes do not.
You seem to have trouble readingm all they say is they want to educate people on sharia. Of course seeing the curren right aversion of education this falls right into that . How dare they talk/explan there motives/reasons . Talking is so un american . banning things is so american
Sharia is evil and brutal. Oppressive and dangerous. We cannot allow it to be used here. Religious freedom does not mean the freedom to oppress. Think about that.
islam should be outlawed? Funny how quick people forget the origine of there own country when they irrationaly hate others .
You are absolutely correct Trinnity. Unfortunately, it's likely already too late. Just like the illegal immigration disease, it already has it's foothold, and will do nothing but spread. And the Federal government will only encourage it. It is sickening.
Dutch, et al, I will defend and fight for any one's rights - in the US, to uphold the individual freedoms and their right to pursue any religious belief under any God they choose. (COMMENT) Having said that, this implies some limitations. Our highest laws in the land are The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In America, no one and nothing supersedes these tenants. There is NO such thing in the United States called Sharia Law. There are Laws of the United States, both Federal and State. And while these laws preserve religious freedoms, they also protect the individual against the oppression by a religious belief. Under our laws, no one may be compelled to adhere to a specific religious belief, and no religion may exact any form of punishment on any citizen that violates standing US Law (state or federal). Everyone enjoys equal protection. That is what we fight for and that is what we stand forth to protect. We don't allow women to receive 100 lashes for being lesbians; or execute homosexuals. We don't fine women 10 days to 2 months prison or a cash fine of 50,000 to 500,000 rials” for being uncovered; and we don't punish unmarried couples for living together. We don't whip people for drinking and gambling. We don't allow the husband to beat their wives. We don't punish people for criticizing the law, religion, or specific religious personalities or deities. We allow women to read and drive. We allow a lot of things that are not politically or religiously correct in Muslim World. And our people have earned that right - and protect those rights. And everyone that steps across the border --- has those same rights and protections. There is no place for the general application of Sharia Law; in any form. There is but one law in America, United States Law; "with liberty and justice for all." No matter what religion you may believe in, this is the simple truth. Most Respectfully, R
I think people need to read the post I put up on the first page that compares this to Jewish law that is already practiced in the US>
Marine1, et al, I liked your post and perhaps I should have made comment on it first. (COMMENT) What you describe is entirely legal. And it requires no real change to American Law. It is, more or less, a contractual arrangement. Arbitration is a time honored tradition in resolving conflict and a means to determine restitution. But I would also suggest that no form of arbitration my violate US law. You cannot own a slave in the US. But you can hire an employee. There must be a "benefit-for-a-benefit." You cannot sell your children, and the age of consent for children cannot be changed; it cannot be 9 for females and 15 for males; as it is in some countries. But I assume you were speaking on reasonable arrangements. And that is acceptable because both parties have come to an agreed upon understanding in the civil application. Most Respectfully, R
Wake up and read the news - one case was posted in the OP. Sharia DOMINATES. It dominates other religions, because there is no other true religion. It dominates the law, because sharia is the LAW. We seen it all over the world, where sharia is in use. Make no mistakes; if allowed to take roots in the US, this will become a everyday occurrence:
Islam wants to rule, not be equal. Sharia law is step one to archieve this. In Europe city's already have defacto Sharia law ( brussels, London Paris Marseille to name a few) and Islamic no go zone's to accompany them.
And in other words, the Japanese have trained dogs to communicate in morse code to help in the invasion of Hawaii.
A case that is often abused by people like that. I would suggest you look into the case and see it doesnt base itself on sharia law . BS there is no sharia in the USA, its politicians scaring you with the boogyman, and as little children you hide under the covers. Grow up and act like a man.