You are on page 1of 18

What is Sharia and is it Creepy?

June 18, 2012 5:10 amComments OffViews: 1837 Share this:

If you believe Newt Gingrich, sharia is a mortal threat to Western civilization and to American rule of law because stealth jihadists are manipulating our legal system so sharia can creep in, slowly and steadily eroding our secular laws until sharia has overtaken the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.1 The Republican presidential hopeful is not the only one to warn of the threat of creeping sharia in the United States. Several conservative politicians, bloggers and commentators2argue that sharia, not violent jihad, is Americas wartime enemy since 9/11 and that the fight against it is the civil rights struggle of the 21st century.3 Their solution? A preemptive strike against sharia before it is too late: We should enact state and federal legislation to ban consideration of sharia in all American courtrooms. The most aggressive version of this project was launched last year in Tennessee, where a state senate bill defined sharia as a legal-political-military doctrine that requires the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions and the imposition of sharia through v iolence and criminal activity,4 and would have made it a felony to support any state-designated sharia organization.5 After public opposition, the sharia references were removed from the bill, but the sharia threat remains a live issue in Tennessee. A different (and somewhat more successful) approach was taken in 2010 in Oklahoma, where voters overwhelmingly passed the Save Our State amendment prohibiting Oklahoma courts from considering international law or sharia law.6 That amendment is currently suspended, pending federal appeal on constitutional grounds. But the anti-sharia campaign continues with missionary zeal. The latest version is called American Laws for American Courts (ALAC), which does not specifically prohibit sharia per se, but sharia is clearly its primary target.7 At this point, more than a dozen states have proposed, and many have passed, legislation following either the Oklahoma or ALAC model, and it is expected that many more will do so as we near the presidential election this year. Fueled by the still-persistent myth that President Barack Obama is a Muslim, many Americans casting their vote in November will likely also be asked whether their state should ban sharia.8

But most Americans know nothing about what they are being asked to ban, nor enough about how judges currently treat sharia-based claims to know whether a ban is even needed in the first place. Anti-sharia advocates insist that naive liberal judges are compromising American law in favor of sharia such that if the bans are not instituted soon, Americans will discover too late that we have let in a sharia Trojan horse that will ultimately take over our country. The cases they cite as evidence of this sharia infiltration do not actually illustrate this phenomenon several are actually examples of judicialrejection of sharia-based claims9 but concerns about sharia have nevertheless found a solid place in American politics. There is now enough fear of a sharia threat that candidates seem to gain political points by opposing sharia

and distancing themselves from Muslims in general.10 Some Americans believe that we should be suspicious of Muslims in public office.11 Congressman Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, and New Jersey Superior Court Judge Sohail Mohammed are just two examples of American Muslims whose loyalties have been questioned because of their religion, with suggestions that they might be part of a stealth or civilizational jihad arm of the sharia conspiracy to take over the country. It all sounds like the plot of a (badly researched) Hollywood movie, but this is the reality of American politics today.

Even among Americans who are not convinced that sharia is the global political-military threat that Gingrich thinks it is, most have little that is positive to say about it. In American public discourse, sharia is most often associated with terrorism, oppression of women and harsh criminal laws, leaving very little room for Americans to imagine sharia as a positive force in Muslim lives. A decade ago, this might not have mattered much, but things are different now that sharia has been inserted into American politics. With American public discourse so heavily weighted against sharia in any form, few Americans have any appreciation for what sharia actually means for American Muslims or what a sharia ban would mean in practice. I believe there are several important and largely overlooked features of sharia and American law that reveal the anti-sharia campaign to be a destructive solution in search of a problem.

What sharia means to American Muslims

Are American Muslims living by sharia and raising sharia-based legal claims in American courtrooms? Yes, but not in a way that threatens American law. For an average Muslim, sharia means the rules by which one lives an Islamic life. Most common are the rules regarding ritual practice, morality and etiquette, as well as property ownership, business transactions, marriage and divorce, and inheritance. There are several different schools of Islamic law for Muslims to choose from (more on this later), so the actual rules that are followed vary greatly from person to person. Muslims in America also span the spectrum of religious observance, so sharia matters more to some than to others.

American courtrooms have seen several recurring sharia topics raised as legal issues. Many of these are requests for accommodation for religious dress, dietary rules and ritual practice, such as prayer and fasting. More complex cases involve sharia-based rules about business transactions, family law and inheritance. For example, many American Muslims follow Islamic rules prohibiting usury and highly speculative market transactions when making financial investments (including home-buying), and include reference to these rules in their contracts. Also, most Muslims marry according to sharia-based rules defining a valid Muslim marriage, which means that the required provision for a mahr (bridal gift) often becomes relevant in dissolutions of property upon divorce. Finally, many American Muslims take legal steps for their estate to be distributed according to Islamic inheritance rules instead of prevailing state intestacy law.

One important note: Muslims in the United States are decidedly uninterested in sharia criminal law. Contrary to insinuations from the anti-sharia campaign, Muslims in the United States show no interest in having American law criminalize actions such as extramarital sex or alcohol consumption, or punishing theft with hand amputation. Although some point to Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan to suggest that Muslims desire state punishment of these crimes, these references are inappropriate for the context of Muslims living under a secular government like the United States. Simply put, the criminal laws of foreign Muslim countries say nothing about what laws American Muslims would like to enact in the United States, any more than the laws of the Jewish state of Israel tell us anything about what laws American Jews want enacted in America.

How religious legal claims are treated in American courts

The anti-sharia campaign argues that judicial accommodation of sharia-based requests represents a new threat to our secular American rule of law. But the task of protecting religious freedom within a secular legal system is a challenge that our nation has negotiated since its birth. American Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Native Americans and others regularly request legal accommodation for religious rules that conflict with the secular law of the land. As a result, our legal system has established several policies and practices for adjudicating these cases. To put it concisely, American judges balance the constitutional right to religious exercise with other constitutional and legislative principles, using legal tools such as comity, public policy and unconscionability.12 Results vary depending upon the particular facts. Sometimes the religious request wins, sometimes it doesnt. For example, Jewish yarmulkes are not exempted from military dress codes but accommodations are sometimes made in police departments; Amish children are not forced to comply with mandatory public schooling laws beyond the eighth grade; Catholic adoption agencies were not exempted from state laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination. None of these cases are easy, and reasonable minds differ over whether the courts get it right each time. But in every case, the job of the judge is a careful balancing of rights against each other, not an automatic trumping of religious practice by secular law or vice versa.

Sharia in American courtrooms

What does this balancing look like in cases involving sharia specifically? In criminal cases, sharia-based arguments are routinely outweighed by the secular law of the land. Not unlike similar claims from other religious minorities, American courts reject purportedly sharia-based defenses to excuse criminally prohibited acts such as domestic violence and child abuse.13 But the most common sharia-based claims involve issues of Islamic family law. Divorce cases dominate the field, with mahr being perhaps the most litigated issue. Muslim divorce cases are especially interesting because, in addition to religious freedom, they involve a secular freedom recognized by American law: freedom of contract. Because of the characteristically contractual nature of marriage in Islam, Muslim marriages generally include a written marriage

contract detailing, among other things, what mahr (if any) is owed to the wife upon divorce. It is a longstanding principle in American law to give effect to the meeting of the minds of contracting parties, including their foreign choice of law, as long as its application is not outweighed by American public policy or constitutional principles. A choice of religious law by contractual reference is treated the same as foreign law it is generally honored unless: (1) it violates basic contract law (for example, its terms are unclear), or (2) applying it would violate public policy.14

Sharia-based arguments that have been rejected for conflict with public policy include unilateral talaq (a Muslim husbands unilateral access to no-fault divorce) because of its lack of due process and fair hearing given to the wife,15 and strictly gendered child-custody rules as they conflict with the best interests of the child standard, now prevailing in all states.16 Coercion is also fatal to enforcement of a contract term. American judges have declined to enforce mahr clauses if they conclude there was coercion or a lack of understanding by one of the parties.17

Accommodation of sharia does not threaten our rule of law; it is an illustration of it

These cases illustrate that American judges neither automatically reject nor automatically defer to sharia requests. Rather, these claims are judged against American public policy and other important principles of American law. In other words, once you actually look at the sharia-based requests that American Muslims are making, and how American judges actually treat them, it is blatantly almost embarrassingly obvious that there is no sharia threat. When American Muslims say they want to live their lives by sharia, they do not mean they want state enactment of sharia. Rather, they would sometimes like to opt out of the prevailing secular law for religious reasons. By making legal requests in American courtrooms, they are not forcing anyone else to opt out with them. (There is a fundamental difference, after all, between an opt out and a takeover.) And when judges accommodate these sharia-based opt-out requests, it is not an example of the slow creeping shariazation of American law, but rather of how religious freedom is protected in our secular country.

To see a sharia threat in these cases is simply to mistake religious freedom for religious invasion. It is to conflate the First Amendments Free Exercise Clause (protecting the free exercise of religion) with its Establishment Clause (prohibiting government establishment of religion). Despite anti-sharia commentary that sometimes slides these categories together, state protection of religious practice is not the same thing as state entanglement with religion. Judicial protection of American Muslims sharia-based practices does not mean America has begun to establish sharia as the law of the land (nor does it make us more vulnerable to terrorist attack). But it does demonstrate to ourselves and to the world that Americans value religious freedom and religious pluralism, and that we believe our nation is the better for it.

The project to redefine sharia

The only way judicial accommodation of sharia could signal the beginning of a sharia takeover is if sharia did not mean Islamic law at all, but rather, some sort of religious tyrannical movement. Redefining sharia along these lines is, in fact, the founding premise of the anti-sharia campaign, which depends upon the circular argument that begins with describing sharia as a Muslim totalitarian movement and then asserts that sharia must be prohibited because it is a threat to national security.18 As it turns out, the project to redefine sharia is more important even than banning it. As principal sharia-ban author David Yerushalmi himself recently revealed, If this thing passed in every state without any friction, it would have not served its purpose. The purpose was heuristic to get people asking this question, What is Shariah? 19

If changing the meaning of sharia is the major goal of the movement, then anti-sharia rhetoric in America may continue long after the 2012 election. This means that what is sharia? is a question that deserves time and attention by any American not quite convinced by the global caliphate takeover definition provided by antisharia advocates. There is neither time nor space for a full elaboration of sharia here, but I can summarize some key point s important for all Americans to understand. Below are some basic concepts that can serve as a foundation for those interested in eventually answering the question for themselves.

What is Sharia?

Sharia is the recipe, not the resultFirst, sharia is not religious law in the sense that most Americans are accustomed to thinking of religious law i.e. a set code of divine legal rules. Instead, think of sharia as a recipe. There are, of course, fundamental differences between God and a cookbook author, but to understand sharia as it exists in the world, it helps to keep this metaphor in mind. Sharia is the way that Muslims believe God has advised people to live, as documented in the Quran and the practices of Prophet Muhammad. Literally meaning street, sharia refers to Gods Way or Gods Law, which practicing Muslims use as a guide for their lives. Sharia is, so to speak, the Muslim recipe for living a good life.But no one can actually taste a recipe. We can only taste the product of a chefs efforts to follow one. It is much the same with sharia; it is believed to be the perfect Law of God, but it is impossible to know it directly. Instead, we know it through the interpretation of imperfect human beings Muslim legal scholars who, quite remarkably, admit their own fallibility. The rules they extrapolate from scripture are thus called fiqh, which literally means understanding, reflecting the principle that every fiqh rule is only a scholars best understanding of sharia, nothing more. This is a very creative and I think the only way to engage in religious lawmaking. As world history illustrates, claiming to speak for God without admitting the possibility that one could be wrong is very dangerous fire for humans to play with. Fiqh is fallible, and pluralisticFiqh lawmaking is based on accepting the impossibility of knowing Gods Law with certainty, but not the futility of trying. To create a fiqh rule, a Muslim legal scholar must perform ijtihad an exhaustive process of jurisprudential analysis. Once past the ijtihad bar, fiqh rules acquire a unique quality: They

are all equally valid. This is because there is no way to know for sure which ones are correct (and there is no Muslim church to designate favorites). As a result, all fiqhefforts are respected as equally legitimate understandings of sharia even those that contradict each other.The sharia-ban campaign is fond of quoting some classical fiqh rules to argue that sharia is violent, oppressive and antithetical to American values.20 A simple appreciation of the difference between sharia and fiqh, however, reveals the error in this argument. Quoting one (or even more than one) fiqh rule does not define sharia any more than quoting Plessy v. Ferguson defines the American Constitution. It was not the Constitution that endorsed the oppression of black schoolchildren in the United States, it was one interpretation of the Constitution that did so. Fiqh pluralism means fiqh choiceBecause all fiqh understandings of Gods Law are equally valid, the landscape of fiqh is one of legal pluralism. Over time, collections of fiqh scholars formed into schools, each with its own signature interpretive methodology and collection of rules on topics such as property, contracts, family and criminal law.21 Individual Muslims wishing to live by sharia then choose which fiqh school to follow. Fiqh pluralism thus allows Islamic law to be tangible enough for everyday Muslim use, but still flexible enough to accommodate evolution and personal choice. For Muslims, there is one Law of God, but there are many schools of fiqh articulating that Law here on earth. That simple fact is what makes discussing sharia so challenging in the West where religious law is expected to be exact, uniform and uncontestable by believers. Extremists reject fiqh pluralismWhen anti-sharia activists myopically quote some fiqh rules and call them sharia, they fail to acknowledge the forest of fiqh alternatives that exists beyond those trees. Ironically, this is the same attitude taken by Muslim extremists, who reject fiqh pluralism because they believe their fiqh choices are correct, and refuse to entertain the possibility that they might be wrong (or at least that others have an equal chance at being right). In other words, radical Islam is not so much about extreme fiqh rules (those can always be rebutted in the marketplace of fiqhpluralism), but rather about narrowness of mind the unflinching certainty that ones preferred religious rules are how everyone should live. Some radical Muslims are even willing to force others to comply with their view, sometimes by taking over state power, sometimes through violence.This is why they fall outside the mainstream of Islamic thought. Their attitude denies the founding principle of Islamic jurisprudence that humans cannot know Gods Law for sure. From a sharia-minded perspective, fiqhuniformity is radicalism. Fiqh scholars operated from the premise that oppression results when respect for religious legal pluralism is lost when some become so sure of their understanding of Gods Law that they seek to limit the different understandings of others.22Ironically (but perhaps not surprisingly), anti-sharia activists sound very much like radical Muslim extremists. They repeat the singular (global jihadist) definition of sharia promoted by the worlds most radical Muslim extremists, and they also prioritize legal uniformity and eschew religious legal pluralism. By seeking to ban consideration of sharia (and apparently all religious law) in American courtrooms, anti-sharia activists seek to narrow the range of religious practices that can find legal protection in the United States. Their vision is a one law for all 23 monochromatic secularism, instead of our current system that accommodates a variety of religious practices as long as they do not offend public policy. Sharia does not require state legislation of fiqhOne of the sharia takeover arguments is that sharia requires government legislation of sharia. It should now be clear that the phrase legislation of sharia is ambiguous because it does not specify a school of fiqh rules. After all, no state can really know if it is enacting sharia, because sharia is tangibly known only through many fallible fiqhinterpretations. The most a state can do is enact its preferred fiqh interpretation but when it does so, we should recognize that it is making a choice among many equally valid fiqh options. Thus, no specific fiqhrule can be said to be dictated by sharia.So, how do Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and Sudan get away with imposing sharia legislation upon their populations? The short answer is because modern Muslim governments have merged two legal realms that used to be separate.24 Pre-modern Muslim legal systems were organized around two different types of law: fiqh and

siyasa. Fiqh, we already know, is religious law created by legal scholars, fallible, pluralistic and Muslims have the freedom to select which fiqh to follow. Siyasa (literally administration) is different in kind and application. Siyasa is state law created by Muslim rulers, based not on scriptural interpretation but on what is needed for public order (maslaha). It covers topics on which the scripture has little or nothing to say, such as traffic laws, zoning, marketplace regulations and public safety, and is usually applied uniformly to everyone, enforced with the police power of the state.The separate legal realms of fiqh and siyasa protected fiqh pluralism, and thus individual religious freedom. Rulers themselves facilitated fiqh pluralism by appointing judges from different fiqh schools, giving people access to state-enforced adjudication of their fiqh-based legal conflicts according to their school of choice. This practice included non-Muslims. In pre-modern Muslim societies, it would be normal, for example, for one couple to get divorced under Maliki fiqh, another under Hanafi fiqh, and another under Jewish halakha.But Muslim governments today are a deliberate departure from the pre-modern constitutional model that recognized a separation of fiqh and siyasa law. Instead, they are built on the nation-state model inherited from colonialism, where the government has a monopoly on all lawmaking power and there is no legally protected space for fiqh pluralism. When law is centralized in this way, these governments can easily be pressured to legislate and enforce one set of fiqh rules on everyone. This approach merges fiqh and siyasa power in a pseudotheocratic way that was not possible in pre-modern systems. The result can be oppression of religious freedom, not only of non-Muslim minorities but also of any Muslim who follows different fiqh rules than those enforced by the government. Most importantly, all this has occurred because of contemporary politics, not because sharia demands it.

This is not really about sharia. This is about America.

There is one last glaringly obvious reason why there is no sharia threat to America: the Establishment Clause. Any attempte d sharia legislation would simply be struck down as an establishment of religion. Given this reality, the campaign to ban sharia appears not as a movement to stop a sharia takeover, but instead to narrow the range of religious practice protected by American law. This fits with the campaigns condemnations of multiculturalism. Anti-sharia activists argue that multiculturalism is dangerous because it opens the door to creeping sharia.25 The greater the fear of sharia, the stronger the argument against multiculturalism and diversity in the American public (and political) sphere.

Ultimately, then, the sharia-ban campaign is not really about sharia. It is about who we are as Americans. It is about what sort of secularism we want to espouse European assimilationism, or American religious pluralism? Will we prioritize legal homogeneity or individual freedom? Census predictions estimate that by mid-century, there will no longer be a racial majority in the United States: We will truly be a country of multiple minorities.26 What forms of religious pluralism, cultural diversity and personal life choices will be enabled to thrive in the United States of the 21st century?

Here is a thought. What if sharia the very ideology that has been so demonized in America has some useful insights on these questions? The scholars of sharia sought stability not by forcing uniformity, but by finding ways to embrace multiplicity without sacrificing coherence. A quick look at both Muslim and American history illustrates societies that were at their worst when they insisted upon rigidity and sameness, and at their best when they were not scared by difference. Perhaps we could embrace the significance of that now. We might even learn something from Muslim experiences with sharia, if only we could stop reducing it to something that it is not.

Speech to the American Enterprise Institute, July 29, 2010, Wajahat Ali, Eli Clifton, Matthew Duss, Lee Fang, Scott Keyes and Faiz Shakir, Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America, Center for American Progress, August 2011, American Public Policy Alliance, Senate Bill 1028, as introduced in March 2011, This designation was to be made by the state attorney general based on determinations that include: (1) that the organization adhered to sharia, and (2) engages in, or retains the capability and intent to engage in, an act of terrorism, Senate bill 1028. See State Question No. 755, available at The American Public Policy Alliance website includes several sharia-related links, but no links or references to any other foreign or religious law, The stated goal of the movement is to pass legislation banning sharia in every state and in the federal government. Newt Gingrich has specifically called for a federal sharia ban. See Gingrich Calls For Federal Ban On Shariah Law in US, TPMDC, September 18, 2010, American Civil Liberties Union Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief report, Nothing to Fear: Debunking the Mythical Sharia Threat to Our Judicial System, May 2011, Devin Dwyer, GOP Presidential Hopefuls Blast Sharia Law in Pre-Primary Rhetoric, ABC News, March 29, 2011, .TvK5vmB8xl0. CBS News, Herman Cain on Having a Muslim in his Cabinet, published June 9, 2011,

For some details, see Michael Helfand, Religious Arbitration and the New Multiculturalism: Negotiating Conflicting Legal Orders, New York University Law Review 86 (2011). This includes the recent New Jersey case, S.D. v. M.J.R., often cited by anti-sharia advocates to imply that American courts are tolerating Muslim religious arguments to excuse what would otherwise be considered sexual assault. In that case, the state court of appeals unequivocally rejected the apparent Muslim cultural defense and allowed the wife a restraining order against her husband. See S.D. v. M.J.R., 415 N.J. Super. 417 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2010). Needless to say, no legislative ban on sharia was necessary to get to this result. For a more detailed discussion of cases involving Islamic family law in American courts, see Asifa Quraishi & Najeeba Syeed-Miller, No Altars: A Survey of Islamic Family Law in the United States, in Womens Rights and Islamic Family Law: Perspectives on Reform, Lynn Welchman (London: Zed Books, 2004). Another useful resource with some more recent cases is the Sharia Index by Abed Awad and Noura Jebara, Aleem v. Aleem, 931 A. 2d 1123 (2008). Malik v. Malik, 638 A. 2d 1184 (1986). In Re Marriage of Obaidi, 226 P. 3d 787 (2010), Zawahiri v. Alwattar, 2008 Ohio 3473 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). The original Tennessee anti-sharia bill began with language to this effect. See supra note 5. Andrea Elliott, The Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement, New York Times, July 30, 2011, The Center for Security Policy states: Shariah institutionalizes discrimination against women, deprives people of freedom of expression and association, criminalizes sexual freedom, and incites hatred and violence against people of certain social groups. As manifested in countries officially ruled by Islamic law, shariah condones or commands abhorrent behavior, including underage and forced marriage, honor killing (usually of women and girls) to preserve family honor, female genital mutilation, polygamy and domestic abuse, and even marital rape, For more on these different fiqh schools and their respective methodologies compared with the methodologies of American constitutional interpretation, see Asifa Quraishi, Interpreting the Quran and the Constitution: Similarities in the Use of Text, Tradition and Reason in Islamic and American Jurisprudence, Cardozo Law Review 28 (2006): 67. The moment in Muslim history when Muslim jurists stood for this principle against state power attempting to enforce belief is called the mihna. For more on this historical event and its impact on Islamic law and government, see Marshall G.S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization I: The Classical Age of Islam, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1974) 285-319, 479-89.

This was the slogan of a similar anti-sharia campaign in Ontario, Canada, prompted by a planned addition of Muslim tribunals to the existing religious arbitration system. Ultimately, the anti-sharia advocates won the day. There will be no Shariah law in Ontario, said Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians. CTV News, September 12, 2005, For more on the topic of centralized state power and how it differs from pre-modern Muslim societies, see Sherman Jackson, Legal Pluralism Between Islam and the Nation-State: Romantic Medievalism or Pragmatic Modernity?, Fordham International Law Journal 30 (2006): 158. See, for example, Salim Mansour, Delectable Lie: A liberal repudiation of multiculturalism, (Brantford: Mantua Books, 2011). Hope Yen, U.S. Minority Population Could Be Majority By Mid-Century Census Shows, Huffington Post, June 10, 2010,

Ce este Sharia i este nfiortor ? 18 iunie 2012 05:10 amComments OffViews : 1837 Share this: Facebook10 Twitter1 Google +1 Dac credei c Newt Gingrich , Sharia este o ameninare mortal a civilizaiei occidentale i a statului american de lege, deoarece " jihaditi stealth " manipuleaz sistemul nostru juridic , astfel sharia poate tr n , ncet i constant erodeaza legile noastre seculare pn sharia a depasit Constituiei, legea suprem a land.1spera republican la presedintie nu este singurul care a avertiza de pericolul de " sharia trtor ", n Statele Unite ale Americii . Mai muli politicieni conservatori , bloggeri i commentators2argue c sharia , jihad nu violent , este inamicul de rzboi al Americii de la 9/ 11 i c lupta mpotriva acest a este " lupta pentru drepturi civile a secolului 21 . " 3 Soluia lor ? Un atac preventiv mpotriva Sharia nainte de a fi prea trziu : Noi ar trebui s adopte o legislaie de stat i federale de a interzice luarea n considerare a sharia n toate slile de judecat americane . Versiunea cea mai agresiva a acestui proiect a fost lansat anul trecut , n Tennessee , n cazul n care un stat Senatul proiect de lege sharia definit ca o doctrin - politic - militar , care " necesit abrogarea , distrugerea , sau de nclcare a Statelor Unite i Constituiile Tennessee i impunerea de Sharia prin violen i activitate criminal ", 4 i ar fi o crim s sprijine orice Sharia stat - desemnate organization.5 Dup ce opoziia public fcut ,

referinele Sharia au fost eliminate din proiectul de lege , dar" sharia ameninare " rmne o problem direct n Tennessee . O abordare diferit ( i ceva mai mult succes ), a fost luat n 2010, n Oklahoma , unde alegtorii trecut o majoritate covritoare " Salvai statul nostru " Amendamentul interzice instanelor din Oklahoma avnd n vedere dreptul internaional sau sharia law.6 Aceast modificare este n prezent suspendat , n ateptarea recursului federal pe constituional motive . Dar campania anti - sharia continu cu zel misionar . Cea mai recent versiune este numit Legile americane pentru instanele americane ( ALAC ) , care nu interzice n mod special sharia n sine , dar Sharia este n mod clar primar target.7 la acest moment , mai mult de o duzin de state au propus , i muli au trecut , legislaia ca urmare fie Oklahoma sau ALAC modelul , i este de ateptat ca mai muli vor face n aa fel nct ne apropiem de alegerile prezideniale din acest an . Alimentate de mitul inca persistente pe care preedintele Barack Obama este un musulman , muli americani s voteze n noiembrie, va probabil , de asemenea, fi ntrebat dac starea lor ar trebui s interzic sharia.8 Dar majoritatea americanilor nu tiu nimic despre ceea ce li se cere s interzic , nici suficient de multe despre modul n care judectorii in prezent, tratamentul creanelor Sharia pe baza de a ti dac un ban este chiar necesar , n primul rnd . Avocaii anti - sharia insist c judectorii liberali naivi sunt compromite legea american n favoarea Sharia , astfel nct n cazul n care interdiciile nu sunt instituite n curnd , americanii vor descoperi prea trziu c am lsa ntr-un cal troian Sharia , care va avea n cele din urm peste ara noastr . Cazurile pe care le citeaz ca dovad a acestei infiltrare Sharia nu ilustreaz de fapt, acest fenomen - mai multe sunt de fapt exemple de judicialrejection de Sharia bazate pe claims9 - dar preocuparile legate de Sharia au gsit totui un loc solid n politica american . Nu este acum suficient de teama de o ameninare Sharia care candidaii par pentru a ctiga puncte politice opunndu- Sharia i distanndu-se de musulmani n general.10 Unii americani cred c ar trebui s fim suspicioi fa de musulmani n public office.11 Congresmanul Keith Ellison , primul musulman alei de Congres , i New Jersey Superior judecator la Curtea Sohail Mohammed sunt doar dou exemple de musulmani americani ale cror loialitate au fost chestionai din cauza religiei lor , cu sugestii care ar putea fi parte a unui stealth sau civilizaional bra jihad al conspiraie Sharia a prelua ar . Totul pare ca intriga unui film la Hollywood ( prost cercetat ) , dar aceasta este realitatea politicii americane de azi . Chiar si in randul americanilor , care nu sunt convini c Sharia este global ameninare politico-militar care Gingrich crede c este , mai au puin , care este pozitiv de spus despre asta . n discursul public american , Sharia este cel mai adesea asociat cu terorismul , opresiunea femeilor i a legilor penale dure , lasand foarte putin loc pentru americani s-i imagineze sharia ca o for pozitiv n viaa musulmane . Un deceniu n urm , acest lucru nu ar fi contat mult , dar lucrurile sunt diferite acum c sharia a fost introdus n politica american . Cu discursul public american att de puternic ponderate fa de sharia , n orice form , puini americani au nici o apreciere pentru ceea ce nseamn de fapt sharia pentru musulmanii americani sau ce o interdicie sharia ar nsemna n practic . Cred c exist mai multe caracteristici importante si in mare parte trecute cu vederea a legii Sharia i americane au evidentiat faptul ca campania anti - Sharia a fi o soluie distructiv n cutare de o problem . Ce Sharia nseamn s musulmanii americani Sunt musulmanii americani care triesc de Sharia i creterea pretenii legale Sharia bazate n slile de judecat americane ? Da , dar nu ntr -un mod care amenin legea american . Pentru un musulman medie , Sharia nseamn regulile prin care o triete o via islamic . Cele mai comune sunt regulile privind practica ritualul , morala si eticheta , precum i dreptul de proprietate , tranzacii de afaceri , cstorie i divor , i motenirea . Exist mai multe coli diferite ale legii islamice pentru musulmani de a alege de la ( mai mult pe aceasta mai trziu ) , astfel nct regulile actuale , care sunt urmate varia foarte mult de la persoana la persoana . Musulmanii din America

cuprinde , de asemenea, spectrul de practica religioasa , deci problemele sharia mai mult pentru unii dect pentru alii . Sli de judecat americani au vzut mai multe subiecte sharia recurente ridicate ca probleme juridice . Multe dintre acestea sunt cereri de cazare pentru rochia de religios , reguli alimentare i practici rituale , cum ar fi rugciunea i postul . Cazuri mai complexe implic reguli Sharia bazate despre tranzaciile de afaceri , dreptul familiei i motenire . De exemplu , muli musulmani americani urmeze regulile islamice interzic tranzaciile de pe piaa cametei i extrem de speculativ pentru a face investiii financiare ( inclusiv casa de cumprare ) , i include o trimitere la aceste norme n contractele lor . De asemenea , cei mai muli musulmani se cstoreasc n conformitate cu regulile Sharia bazate pe o casnicie musulman valabil , ceea ce nseamn c dispoziia necesar pentru a RHMa ( cadou de nunt ), de multe ori devine relevant n dizolvri de proprietate asupra divor . n cele din urm , muli musulmani americani s ia msuri legale pentru starea lor de a fi distribuite n conformitate cu regulile de motenire islamice n loc de predominante legea statului intestacy . Un act important : musulmanii din Statele Unite sunt hotrt interesat n dreptul penal sharia . Spre deosebire de insinuri din campania anti - sharia , musulmanii din Statele Unite arat nici un interes n a avea legea american incrimina aciuni , cum ar fi sexul extramarital sau consumul de alcool , sau pedepsirea furtului cu amputare mana . Dei unele punct de Iran , Arabia Saudit sau Pakistanul s sugereze c musulmanii doresc pedeapsa de stat din aceste crime , aceste referine sunt inadecvate pentru contextul de musulmani care triesc sub un guvern laic , cum ar fi Statele Unite ale Americii . Pur i simplu pune , legile penale ale rilor musulmane strine nu spun nimic despre ce legi american musulmanii ar dori s adopte n Statele Unite , mai mult dect legile statului evreu Israel spune-ne ceva despre ce legi evreilor americani doresc adoptate n America . Cum pretenii legale religioase sunt tratate n instanele americane Campania anti - sharia susine c cazare judiciar a cererilor Sharia bazate reprezint o nou ameninare la adresa statului nostru secular american de drept . Dar sarcina de a proteja libertatea religioas n cadrul unui sistem legal secular este o provocare pe care naiunea noastr a negociat, de la naterea sa . Evreii americani , catolici , mormoni , sikh , hindui , buditi , amerindieni i altele cere n mod regulat cazare juridic pentru norme religioase care intr n conflict cu legea secular a rii . Ca rezultat , sistemul nostru juridic a stabilit mai multe politici i practici pentru judecarea acestor cazuri . Pentru a pus-o succint , judectorii americani echilibra dreptul constituional de a-i exercita religioase cu alte principii constituionale i legislative , folosind instrumente legale , cum ar fi curtoaziei , ordinea public i unconscionability.12 rezultatele variaz n funcie de faptele particulare . Uneori victorii cerere religioase , alteori nu . De exemplu , yarmulkes evrei nu sunt exceptate de la codurile vestimentare militare, ci de cazare sunt uneori realizate n departamentele de politie , copiii Amish nu sunt obligai s respecte legile obligatorii de colarizare publice dincolo de clasa a opta , agentiile de adoptie catolice nu au fost scutite de legile de stat interzic orientare sexual discriminare . Nici unul dintre aceste cazuri sunt uor , i minile rezonabile diferite asupra dac instanele obine o la dreapta de fiecare dat . Dar, n orice caz , de locuri de munc a judectorului este o echilibrare atent a drepturilor unul mpotriva celuilalt , nu o trumping automat de practic religioas prin legea secular sau invers . Sharia n slile de judecat americane Ce nseamn acest echilibru arata ca , n cazurile care implic Sharia n mod special ? n cazuri penale , argumentele bazate pe Sharia sunt de obicei compensate prin

legea secular a rii . Nu spre deosebire de cereri similare din alte minoriti religioase , instanele americane respinge pretins aprare Sharia bazate pe scuza acte interzise penal , cum ar fi violena n familie i copil abuse.13 , dar cele mai multe cereri comune Sharia pe baza implic aspecte de dreptul familiei islamice . Cazurile de divor domina domeniu , cu mahr fiind , probabil, problema cea mai contestat . Cazurile de divor musulmane sunt deosebit de interesant , deoarece , n plus fa de libertatea religioas , acestea implic o libertate secular recunoscut de legea american : libertatea contractual . Din cauza naturii caracteristic contractual de cstorie n Islam , cstorii musulmani sunt n general scrise o detaliere contract de cstorie , printre alte lucruri , ceea ce RHMa ( dac exist) se datoreaz soia la divor . Este un principiu de lung durat n legea american pentru a da un efect de ntlnire a minilor ale prilor contractante , inclusiv alegerea lor externe de drept , att timp ct cererea sa nu este compensat prin politici publice american sau principii constituionale . O alegere a legii religioase de trimitere contractual este tratat la fel ca legea strin - este , n general, onorat dect dac : ( 1 ) se ncalc dreptul contractual de baz ( de exemplu , termenii acesteia sunt neclare ) , sau ( 2 ), aplicarea acesteia ar nclca ordinea public .14 Argumentele Sharia de baz care au fost respinse de conflict cu politica public includ Talaq unilateral ( acces la un sot musulman unilateral de a nu-vina divor ) , din cauza lipsei sale de un proces echitabil i audiere echitabil dat soiei , 15 i strict sexe copii custodie reguli ca acestea intr n conflict cu " interesul superior al copilului " standard , predomin acum n toate states.16 Constrngerea este de asemenea fatal pentru punerea n aplicare a unei clauze contractuale . Judectorii americani au refuzat s pun n aplicare clauzele Mahr dac ncheie existat constrngere sau o lips de nelegere de ctre una din parties.17 Cazare de Sharia nu amenin statul nostru de drept , ea este o ilustrare a acesteia Aceste cazuri ilustreaz faptul c judectorii americani nu respinge n mod automat , nici s amne n mod automat la cererile sharia . Mai degrab , aceste cereri sunt evaluate pe baza politicilor publice americane i a altor principii importante ale dreptului american . Cu alte cuvinte , odat ce te uii de fapt la cererile Sharia bazate pe care musulmanii americani fac , i modul n care judectorii americani le trata de fapt , acesta este ostentativ - aproape jenant - evident c nu exist nici o ameninare sharia . Cnd musulmanii americani spun c vor s triasc viaa lor de Sharia , nu nseamn c doresc adoptarea stare de Sharia . Mai degrab , ei ar dori , uneori, de a renuna la legea predominante secular pentru motive religioase . De a face solicitri legale n slile de judecat americane , ei nu sunt foreaz nimeni s renunai la ele . ( Exist o diferen fundamental , la urma urmei , ntre un opt-out i un preluare . ) i cnd judectorii primi aceste cereri de renunare Sharia bazate , acesta nu este un exemplu de lent trtor " shariazation " a legii americane , ci mai degrab de modul n care libertatea religioas este protejat n ara noastr secular . Pentru a vedea o ameninare sharia , n aceste cazuri, este pur i simplu s confundm libertatea religioas pentru invazii religioase . Este de combine clauza Exercitarea gratuitPrimul Amendament (de protejarea exercitrii libere a religiei ) , cu clauza sa de personal ( care interzice nfiinarea guvern de religie ) . n ciuda comentariu anti Sharia care aluneca uneori, aceste categorii mpreun , protecia de stat a practicii religioase nu este acelai lucru ca incurcatura de stat cu religie . Protecia judiciar a practicilor Sharia bazate pe musulmanii americani " nu nseamn c America a nceput s stabileasc sharia ca lege a rii ( i nici nu ne face mai vulnerabile la atac terorist ) . Dar aceasta nu demonstreaz la noi nine i cu lumea pe care americanii preuiesc libertatea religioas i pluralismul religios , i c noi credem c naiunea noastr este mai bine pentru ea . Proiectul a redefini sharia

Singura modalitate de cazare judiciare de sharia ar putea semnala nceputul unei preluri Sharia este dac Sharia nu am vrut legii islamice , la toate , ci mai degrab , un fel de micri religioase tiranic . Redefinirea Sharia de-a lungul acestor linii este , de fapt , premisa fondator al campaniei anti - sharia , care depinde de argumentul circular , care ncepe cu descrierea Sharia ca o micare musulman totalitar i apoi afirm c sharia trebuie interzis , deoarece aceasta este o ameninare la adresa naional security.18 Dup cum se dovedete , proiectul a redefini Sharia este mai important chiar dect interzicerea ea . Ca principal Sharia - ban autor David Yerushalmi sa dezvluit recent , " Dac acest lucru a trecut n fiecare stat , fr nici o frecare , ar fi nu a servit scopul . Scopul a fost euristic - pentru a obine oameni cere aceast ntrebare , " Ce este Shariah ? " " 19 Dac a schimba sensul de Sharia este obiectivul major al micrii , apoi retorica anti - sharia n America poate continua mult timp dup alegerile din 2012 . Acest lucru nseamn c " ceea ce este Sharia ? " Este o ntrebare care merit timpul i atenia ctre orice american nu destul de convins de " preluare Califatului la nivel mondial ", definiia oferit de avocaii anti - sharia . Nu exist nici timp, nici loc pentru o elaborare plin de " sharia " aici , dar eu pot rezuma cteva puncte -cheie important pentru toi americanii s neleag . Mai jos sunt cateva concepte de baz , care pot servi drept fundament pentru cei interesai n cele din urm a rspunde la ntrebarea pentru ei nii . Ce este Sharia ? Sharia este " reteta " nuresultFirst , Sharia nu este " legea religioas ", n sensul c majoritatea americanilor sunt obisnuiti sa gandim de legi religioase - de exemplu un cod set de norme juridice divine . n schimb, cred c de Sharia ca o reteta . Exist , desigur , diferene fundamentale ntre Dumnezeu i un autor carte de bucate , dar pentru a nelege sharia aa cum exist n lume , i ajut s pstreze aceast metafor n minte . Sharia este modul n care musulmanii cred c Dumnezeu a sftuit oamenii s triasc , aa cum documentate n Coran i practicile Profetului Muhammad . Sensul literal strad, Sharia se refer la calea lui Dumnezeu sau Legea lui Dumnezeu , care practica musulmanii folosi ca un ghid pentru viaa lor . Sharia este , ca s spunem aa , reeta musulman pentru a tri o life.But bun nimeni nu poate gusta de fapt, o reet . Putem gusta doar un produs al eforturilor de un buctar-ef de a urma unul . Este cam la fel cu Sharia , acesta este considerat a fi legea perfect a lui Dumnezeu , dar este imposibil s -l cunosc n mod direct . n schimb , o tim , prin interpretarea de fiine umane imperfecte - juriti musulmani - care , destul de remarcabil , recunosc propria lor failibilitatea . Regulile se extrapoleze la Scriptur sunt astfel numite Fiqh , ceea ce nseamn literalmente nelegere , care reflect principiul c orice regul Fiqh este doar cea mai bun nelegere a savantului de sharia , nimic mai mult . Aceasta este o foarte creativ - i cred c singura - modalitate de a se angaja n legiferare religios . Dup cum ilustreaz istoria lumii , care pretinde s vorbeasc pentru Dumnezeu, fr a admite posibilitatea ca ar putea fi greit este foc foarte periculos pentru om de a juca cu . Fiqh este supus greelii , i pluralisticFiqh legiferare se bazeaz pe acceptarea de imposibilitatea de a cunoate Legea lui Dumnezeu , cu certitudine , dar nu inutilitatea de a ncerca . Pentru a crea o regul Fiqh , un savant juridic musulman trebuie s efectueze ijtihad - un proces exhaustiv de analiz jurisprudenial . Odat trecut de bara de ijtihad , reguli Fiqh dobndi o calitate unic : Ei sunt la fel de valabile . Acest lucru se datoreaz faptului c nu exist nici o modalitate de a ti sigur care sunt cele corecte ( i nu exist nici o " biseric " musulman pentru a desemna favorite ) . Ca urmare , toate fiqhefforts sunt respectate ca nelegeri la fel de legitime de Sharia chiar i cele care contrazic fiecare other.The campanie Sharia - ban este pasionat de citarea unor reguli Fiqh clasice a argumenta c sharia este violent , opresiv i antiteza cu american values.20 O apreciere simpl a diferenei dintre Sharia Fiqh i , cu toate acestea , dezvluie erori n acest argument . Citndu-l pe unul ( sau chiar mai multe )

regula Fiqh nu definete sharia mai mult dect citeaz Plessy v. Ferguson definete Constituia american . Nu a fost Constituia care a aprobat opresiunea de elevi de culoare din Statele Unite , a fost o interpretare a Constituiei , care a fcut acest lucru . Pluralismului Fiqh nseamn Fiqh choiceBecause toate nelegerile Fiqh de Legea lui Dumnezeu sunt la fel de valabile , peisajul de Fiqh este unul dintre pluralism legal . De-a lungul timpului , colecii de cercettori Fiqh au format n coli , fiecare cu o metodologie proprie de interpretare semnarea i colectarea de reguli pe teme cum ar fi proprietatea , contractele , de familie i penal law.21 musulmanilor individuali care doresc s triasc prin Sharia apoi alegei ce coal Fiqh s urmeze . Pluralismului Fiqh astfel permite legea islamic s fie suficient de concret pentru utilizarea de zi cu zi musulman , dar nc suficient de flexibil pentru a se adapta evoluiei i alegere personal . Pentru musulmani , exist o lege a lui Dumnezeu , dar exist multe coli de Fiqh articuleaz c Legea aici, pe pmnt . Acest simplu fapt este ceea ce face discuta sharia att de provocatoare n Vest, unde este de ateptat legea religioas s fie exacte , uniforme i necontestat de ctre credincioi . Extremitii respinge Fiqh pluralismWhen activisti anti - sharia cita miop unor reguli Fiqh i le sharia numesc , ei nu reuesc s recunoasc pdure de alternative Fiqh care exist dincolo de acei copaci . n mod ironic , aceasta este aceeai atitudine luate de ctre extremitii musulmani , care resping pluralismul Fiqh , deoarece ei cred c alegerile lor Fiqh sunt corecte , i refuz s distreze posibilitatea ca acestea ar putea fi greit ( sau cel puin c alii au anse egale de a fi dreapta ) . Cu alte cuvinte , Islamul radical nu este att de mult despre reguli extreme Fiqh ( acestea pot fi ntotdeauna respins n pia de fiqhpluralism ) , ci mai degrab despre ngustimea de spirit -certitudinea de neclintit c normele religioase cuiva preferate sunt cum ar trebui s triasc toat lumea . Unii musulmani radicali sunt chiar dispui s fora pe alii s respecte opinia lor , uneori prin preluarea puterii de stat , uneori prin violence.This este motivul pentru care intr n afara mainstream de gndire islamice . Atitudinea lor neag principiul fondator al jurisprudenei islamice - c oamenii nu pot cunoate Legea lui Dumnezeu pentru sigur . Dintr-o perspectiv Sharia - minte , fiqhuniformity este radicalism . Savani Fiqh operat de la premisa c rezultatele opresiunea atunci cnd respectarea pluralismului juridic religios este pierdut - atunci cnd unele devenit att de sigur de nelegerea lor de Legea lui Dumnezeu c ei caut s limiteze nelegeri diferite ale others.22Ironically ( dar poate nu surprinzator ) , anti - activiti sharia suna foarte mult ca extremitii musulmani radicali . Ei repeta definiia singular ( jihad global ) de Sharia promovat de ctre extremitii musulmani cele mai radicale din lume , i au prioritate , de asemenea, uniformitate juridic i evita pluralismul juridic religios . Prin ncercarea de a interzice luarea n considerare a Sharia ( i se pare c tot legea religioas ), n slile de judecat americane , activitii anti - sharia caut pentru a restrnge gama de practici religioase care pot gsi protecie juridic n Statele Unite . Viziunea lor este o " o lege pentru toi " 23 secularism monocromatica , in loc de sistemul nostru actual , care gzduiete o varietate de practici religioase, atta timp ct acestea nu jignesc politicilor publice . Sharia nu are nevoie de legislaie starea de fiqhOne de a " sharia preluarea" argumente este c sharia necesit o legislaie guvern de sharia . Ar trebui s fie clar c" legislaia Sharia " fraza este ambigu , deoarece nu specific o coal de reguli Fiqh . La urma urmei , nici un stat nu poate ti cu adevrat dac aceasta este adoptarea " sharia ", pentru ca Sharia este tangibil cunoscut numai prin multe fiqhinterpretations supui greelii . Cel mai un stat poate face este s adopte interpretarea Fiqh preferat - dar atunci cnd face acest lucru , trebuie s recunoatem c acesta este de a face o alegere ntre mai multe opiuni de Fiqh la fel de valide . Astfel , nu fiqhrule specific poate fi spus s fie " dictate de Sharia . " Deci , cum rile musulmane , cum ar fi Arabia Saudit , Pakistan , Iran i Sudan scape cu impunerea " legislaia sharia " asupra populaiilor lor ? Rspunsul scurt este c guvernele musulmane moderne au fuzionat dou domenii juridice , care s fie utilizate separate.24 sisteme juridice musulmane pre - moderne, au fost organizate n jurul a dou tipuri diferite de drept : Fiqh i siyasa . Fiqh , tim deja , este legea religioas creat de ctre juriti , failibil , pluralist i musulmanii au libertatea de a selecta care Fiqh s urmeze . Siyasa ( literal " administrare " ) este diferit n natur i aplicaie . Siyasa este legea de stat creat de conductorii musulmani , bazat nu pe interpretarea Scripturii , ci pe ceea ce este necesar pentru ordinea public ( maslaha ) . Acesta acoper subiecte pe careScriptura are puin sau nimic de spus , cum ar fi legile de trafic , de zonare , regulamente pia i siguran public , i este de obicei aplicat uniform pentru toat lumea , aplicat cu putere poliia a state.The taramuri juridice separate ale fiqh i siyasa protejate pluralismul Fiqh , i libertatea religioas , astfel individual .

Conductorii ei nii facilitat pluralismului Fiqh de numire a judectorilor de la diferite coli Fiqh , oferind oamenilor acces la adjudecarea de stat puse n aplicare de conflicte de Fiqh bazate juridic n conformitate cu coala lor de alegere . Aceast practic a inclus non - musulmani . n societile musulmane pre - moderne , ar fi normal , de exemplu , pentru un cuplu pentru a obine divorat n Maliki Fiqh , un alt sub Hanafi fiqh , i un alt sub evrei guvernele musulmane halakha.But astzi sunt o abatere n mod deliberat de la pre - moderne constituional modelul care a recunoscut o separare de Fiqh i drept siyasa . n schimb , ele sunt construite pe modelul statului-naiune motenit de la colonialism , unde guvernul are un monopol pe toate puterii de legiferare i nu exist nici un spaiu protejat din punct de vedere pentru pluralism Fiqh . Atunci cnd legea este centralizat n acest fel , aceste guverne pot fi cu uurin presiuni de a legifera i de a aplica un set de reguli Fiqh pe toat lumea . Aceast abordare mbin puterea Fiqh i siyasa ntr -un mod pseudo- teocratic , care nu a fost posibil n sistemele premoderne . Rezultatul poate fi opresiune a libertii religioase , nu doar de minoritile non- musulmane , dar , de asemenea, de orice musulman care urmeaz reguli diferite de Fiqh dect cele aplicate de guvern . Cel mai important , toate acestea au avut loc din cauza politicii contemporane , nu pentru c Sharia o cere . Acest lucru nu este adevrat despre sharia . Acest lucru este despre America . Mai este un ultim motiv flagrant evident de ce nu exist nici un " Sharia ameninare " n America : Clauza de constituire . Orice lege Sharia tentativ ar fi pur i simplu lovit ca o unitate de religie . Avnd n vedere aceast realitate , campania de a interzice Sharia nu apare ca o micare pentru a opri o preluare Sharia , dar n loc de a restrnge gama de practici religioase protejate de legea american . Acest lucru se potriveste cu condamnricampaniei de multiculturalism . Activitii anti - sharia susin c multiculturalismul este periculos, deoarece deschide usa la " trtor sharia . " 25mai mare frica de Sharia , mai puternicargument mpotriva multiculturalismului i diversitii n sectorul public american ( i politic ) sfer . n cele din urm , atunci , campania de Sharia - ban nu este cu adevarat despre sharia . Este vorba despre cine suntem noi ca americani . Este vorba despre ce fel de secularism vrem s mbrieze - assimilationism european , sau pluralismul religios american ? Vom prioritate omogenitatea juridic sau libertatea individual ? Previziuni recensmnt estimeaz c pn la mijlocul secolului , nu va mai fi o majoritate rasiale n Statele Unite ale Americii : Vom fi cu adevrat o ar de mai multe minorities.26 Ce forme de pluralism religios , diversitatea cultural i alegeri n via personale vor fi activate pentru a prospera n Statele Unite ale secolului 21 ? Aici este un gnd . Ce se ntmpl dac Sharia -ideologia care a fost att de demonizat n America - are unele informaii utile cu privire la aceste ntrebri ? Savanii de Sharia cutat stabilitate nu prin forarea uniformitate , ci prin gsirea unor modaliti de a mbria multitudinea fr a sacrifica coerena . O scurt privire la istoria att musulmani i american ilustreaz societatile care au fost cel mai ru lor, atunci cnd au insistat asupra rigiditate i asemnare , i la cele mai bune lor, atunci cnd nu sau speriat de diferen . Poate am putea imbratisa semnificaia c acum . Am putea nva chiar ceva din experienele musulmane cu sharia , dac am putea opri reducnd-o la ceva ce nu este . Discurs la American Enterprise Institute , 29 Iulie 2010, . Wajahat Ali , Eli Clifton , Matei Duss , Lee Fang , Scott Keyes si Faiz Shakir , " Frica , Inc : radacinile de reea islamofobiei n America , " Centrul American pentru Progres , august 2011, http://www.americanprogress . org/issues/2011/08/pdf/islamophobia.pdf . American Aliana Politici Publice , .

Senatul Bill 1028 , cum a fost introdus n martie 2011, . Aceasta denumire a fost s fie fcut de ctre procurorul general de stat bazat pe determinri , care includ : ( 1 ) c organizaia a aderat la Sharia , i ( 2 ), " se angajeaz n , sau pstreaz capacitatea i intenia de a se angaja ntr- , un act de terorism , " proiect de lege Senatului 1028 . Vezi stat ntrebarea nr 755 , disponibil la . American Public ul alian politic include mai multe link-uri Sharia legate , dar nu link-uri sau referine la orice alt lege strin sau religioase , . Scopul declarat al micrii este de a trece legislaia sharia interzice n fiecare stat i n guvernul federal . Newt Gingrich a cerut n mod special pentru un ban Sharia federal . A se vedea " Apeluri Gingrich pentru Ban federal privind Legea Sharia n SUA , " TPMDC , 18 septembrie 2010 , Civil Liberties Union Programul american privind libertatea de religie i credin raport , " nimic s se team : Debunking mitice " ameninare Sharia " pentru sistemul nostru judiciar , " mai 2011, Devin Dwyer , " GOP prezideniale hopefuls Blast Sharia drept n retoric pre - primar , " ABC News , 29 martie 2011 , - TvK5vmB8xl0 . . CBS News , " Herman Cain de a avea un musulman n cabinetul su , " a publicat 09 iunie 2011 , =Vf-RiiC7w-o . Pentru unele detalii , a se vedea Michael Helfand , " Arbitraj religioas i New Multiculturalism : Negocierea dispoziiilor legale contradictorii , " New York University Law Review 86 ( 2011) . Aceasta include cazul recent New Jersey , S.D. V. MJR , deseori citat de ctre avocaii anti - sharia pentru a sugera c instanele americane sunt tolera argumente religioase musulmane pentru a scuza ceea ce altfel ar fi considerat agresiune sexual . n acest caz , instana de judecat statul de apel a respins fr echivocaprare culturale musulmane aparent i a permis soiei un ordin de restricie mpotriva soului ei . Vezi S.D. V. M.J.R. , 415 N.J. Super . 417 ( N.J. Super. App . Div . 2010) . Inutil s spun , nici o interdicie legislativ pe Sharia a fost necesar pentru a ajunge la acest rezultat . Pentru o discuie mai detaliat a cazurilor care implic dreptul familiei islamice n instanele americane , vezi ASIFA Quraishi & Najeeba Syeed - Miller , " Nu Altare : Un studiu de Dreptul Familiei islamice n Statele Unite , " n drepturile femeii i dreptul familiei islamice : Perspective asupra reform , Lynn Welchman ( Londra : Books Zed , 2004) . O alt resurs util , cu unele cazuri mai recente este Indicele Sharia de Abed Awad i Noura Jebara , . Aleem V. Aleem , 931 A. 2d 1123 ( 2008) . Malik V. Malik , 638 A. 2d 1184 ( 1986) . n cstorie Re a Obaidi , 226 p. 3d 787 ( 2010) , Zawahiri V. Alwattar , 2008 Ohio 3473 ( Ohio Ct . App . 2008) . Originalul Tennessee anti - sharia proiect de lege a inceput cu limba n acest sens . A se vedea supra nota 5 . Andrea Elliott , " omul din spatele micrii anti- Shariah , " New York Times , 30 iulie 2011 , . Centrul de Securitate a statelor Politica : " Shariah instituionalizeaz discriminare mpotriva femeilor , priveaz oamenii de libertatea de exprimare i de asociere , incrimineaz libertatea sexual , i incit la ur i violen mpotriva oamenilor din anumite grupuri sociale . Aa cum se manifest n rile conduse oficial de legea islamic , Sharia nu absolv sau comenzi comportament dezgusttor , inclusiv minori i cstoria forat , " crime de onoare " ( de obicei, de femei i fete ) pentru a pstra familia " onoare ", mutilarea genital a femeilor , abuzul poligamia i interne , i chiar violul marital , " . Pentru mai multe despre aceste coli diferite Fiqh i metodologiile lor respective , comparativ cu metodele de interpretare constituional american , a se vedea ASIFA Quraishi , " Interpretarea Coranului i Constituie : similitudini n utilizarea de text , Tradiie i raiunea n jurisprudenta islamica si american , " Cardozo Law Review 28 (

2006) : 67 . n momentul n istoria musulman atunci cnd juriti musulmani stat pentru acest principiu - mpotriva puterii de stat ncercarea de a executa credin - este numit mihna . Pentru mai multe despre acest eveniment istoric i impactul acesteia asupra legii islamice i de guvern , a se vedea Marshall GS Hodgson ,Venture de Islam : contiina i istorie ntr-o civilizaie mondial : epoca clasic a Islamului , ( Chicago :University of Chicago Press , 1974 ) 285 - 319 , 479 - 89 . Acesta a fost sloganul unei campanii anti - sharia similare in Ontario , Canada , determinat de un plus de planificate de tribunale musulmane a sistemului de arbitraj religios existent . n cele din urm , avocaii anti - Sharia a ctigat a doua zi . " Nu va fi nici o lege Sharia n Ontario ", a declarat Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty . " Nu va fi nici un arbitraj religios n Ontario . Nu va fi o lege pentru toate Ontarians . " CTV News , 12 septembrie 2005 , . Pentru mai multe pe tema puterii de stat centralizat i modul n care aceasta difer de la societile musulmane pre - moderne , a se vedea Sherman Jackson , " pluralismul juridice ntre Islam i statul-naiune : ? Medievalismul Romantic sau modernitii pragmatic , " Fordham International Law Journal 30 (2006 ) : 158 . A se vedea , de exemplu , Salim Mansour , Lie delicioase : o repudiere liberal al multiculturalismului , ( Brantford : Mantua Books , 2011) . Hope Yen , " Statele Unite ale Americii Minoritate populaiei ar putea fi majoritar, de show Recensamantul la mijlocul secolului, " Huffington Post , 10 iunie 2010 , .