Erica Haworth

Shariah Law in America

On Wednesday January 11,2011, an editorial ran in the Washington Times discussing the invasion of America’s courts by foreign and especially Islamic policy:

            See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/11/shariah-in-americas-courts/

and   http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/21/sharia-law-dispute-goes-to-court/

“A panel of federal judges has ruled that states cannot protect their courts from jurists who base their decisions on international or Koranic law. On Tuesday, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals a federal district court order blocking implementation of an amendment to the Oklahoma constitution that sought to ban judges from using international or Muslim law as a basis for deciding cases. The amendment was approved in November 2010 by a 70 percent popular vote but has never been enforced.”

In the way that the referendum singled out Shariah Law, it was inevitable that the Muslim community would respond to the infringement posed on their first-amendment rights. “Plaintiff Muneer Awad, executive director of the Oklahoma branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), argued that the amendment infringed on his First Amendment rights.  The Council on American- Islamic Relations is the largest Muslim Civil Liberties organization in the United States, which is located in Washington D.C. on Capitol Hill. The CAIR was established in 1994 and is renowned as a promoter of Muslim civil human rights in the United States.

“Mr. Awad said Muslims support the way U.S. secular courts currently handle Sharia-related issues — by calling in Muslim scholars and imams as expert witnesses in such cases as wills and divorce decrees that specify the use of Sharia principles but by ruling themselves on the legal disputes.” Mr. Awad was reported saying, “Sharia is not a code of laws … it’s more of a guidance.”

Now the main question here is why was the Shariah Law directly included in the referendum? Sources do not precisely say exactly why the Shariah Law was included in the Referendum, but one could infer that it was due to an anti-Islam group. The Washington Times article reports, “The referendum was most notably supported by a nonprofit group that fights the threat of radical Islam. The group, Act For America (AFA), spent more than $60,000 in a campaign to pass the law, consisting of 650,000 automated phone calls informing voters of the law, and several weeks of radio ads.”

CAIR responded publicly to this referendum, “the lower court blocked implementation of the "Save Our State Amendment" based on arguments that it would unconstitutionally disfavor an entire faith and deny Oklahoma's Muslims access to the judicial system on the same terms as every other citizen.” CAIR also included that, "Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma."

My personal assessment of this controversy is that the Muslim Community was wrongfully cast into this referendum, which was “unconstitutionally in disfavor of an entire faith”.  With this being said, however, I am personally opposed to any religious affiliation within the court of law.  Allowing religious laws to be applied in the court of law should frighten everyone. It is possible that having this be legal, any religious law could manipulate court rulings to a judge’s favor. We must also remember this is America, and our legal system is already protected from outside influences. America has a secular court system for a reason and that is to protect our citizens from external influences that could manipulate a secular courtroom ruling. Separation of church and state is crucial and should include every religion.  I feel that the actual referendum had good intentions of disabling religious law in the court of law to an extent, yet it specifically cast Shariah Law into the referendum, specifically targeting the Muslim community.

Analyzing this entire controversy, I feel that there is no need to pass an amendment such as this, when our legal system is already protected from such outside influences. This referendum is disguised as attempting to correct the court of law, yet in actuality it is discrimination against the Muslim community by anti-Muslim groups.