MSO president, Webber call ban on Sharia law ignorant, wasteful
The bill's sponsor Don Wells says the bill would protect Missourians.
Published March 18, 2011
Increasing Islamic tension across the nation found its way into Missouri legislation this week in the form of HJR 31, a bill to bar Sharia law.
The bill, sponsored by Missouri Rep. Paul Curtman, R-Pacific, and Rep. Don Wells, R-Cabool, aims to ensure Shariah laws and foreign laws are not implemented in U.S. Courts.
Professor of Religious Studies Richard Callahan said HJR 31 only continues to foster the fear of foreign people and minorities in the United States.
“There is no reason to pass the bill, other than to signal both a sense that Muslims are not American, and that America as we know it is under threat of being transformed into some sort of alien Muslim state,” Callahan said.
The text of the bill first calls for U.S. courts to uphold the U.S. Constitution's laws but also mentions Sharia law as a law courts should reference for guidance.
"The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures," the bill states. "Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law."
Rep. Stephen Webber, D-Columbia, said he believed the bill will only create fear of Islamic belief and isolate a group of people from society but that the bill would probably pass once sent to the House floor.
“I think the bill is certainly fueling anti-Islamic sentiment,” Webber said. “I think at best, it is an absolutely frivolous waste of time and money that will have no impact on anything and will only drain the resources that should be used actually helping the people of Missouri.”
Wells acknowledged that the laws that he is trying to ban are not actually applied in U.S. Courts but said Missouri is at risk of being influenced by Islamic practices. Specifically, Wells said Sharia law threatens the safety of Americans.
“Missouri does not need foreign law in addition to the ones stated to make decisions in our courts,” Wells said in a statement. “Prohibiting Sharia law will also protect Missourians.”
Muslim Student Organization President Arwa Mohammad said she believes the proposed bill is the result of misunderstandings of Islamic faith and Sharia law in general.
“Sharia is not just a body of laws," Mohammad said. "It actually comes from a method in which Islamic jurists, through years of scholarship, study religious text to ascertain what divine rule is. I think a lot of times people simplify it into a black and white issue of what is allowed and what isn’t.”
Mohammad also said that those with little understanding of Islam mistakenly believe Sharia law is strict and unchanging.
“Shariah has been used throughout many different time periods and many different areas and can be adjusted to local customs,” Mohammad said.
Callahan said many religions have laws and legal codes, and the fact that Sharia is being singled out and treated differently confirms anti-Islamic sentiment.
“Sharia law cannot become the law that U.S. courts use, any more than courts can make rulings based on the Ten Commandments or the laws of Leviticus,” Callahan said. “But we don't see proposed bills banning those legal codes, do we?”
Callahan said Islam should not be viewed as foreign, seeing as the religion has been a part of the U.S. for centuries.
“Unfortunately, some Americans seem to have something at stake in suppressing religious diversity in this country and trying to use religious affiliation or belief as a marker of who is or is not "truly" American,” Callahan said.
A hearing for the bill is not yet scheduled, according to the Missouri House website.
Comments (4)
10:38 a.m., March 18, 2011
TL Winslow said:
With any other religious group there is little chance of their laws becoming a threat to the rest of us, but with Islam, first, there's 1.5B of them, and second, from day one Islam has been about dominating the world under orders of Allah to control the govt. and set up His Way AKA Sharia that makes Muslims superior to non-Muslims in all ways and tramples their rights and freedoms in a form of perpetual subjection. That's why there is a Muslim world: they sent out armies that destroyed the cultures and religions around them to create a monocultural goliath, where even to insult Islam or try to convert somebody to another religion or leave it brings a death penalty. After 1400 years the original jihad has been called off, but not until the 1920s when the caliphate was abolished, and ever since there have been continual calls to reestablish it, including conferences right here in the U.S. A new caliph would have a duty to call a jihad annually to conquer the rest of the non-Muslim world, making it mandatory for all Muslims in the U.S. and elsewhere to join in regardless of national loyalties, because Allah doesn't recognize nations, only his global Borg-like Ummah of believers who must face Mecca 5x a day to pray or face execution. Worse, the Quran contains orders by Allah to wage eternal jihad until the whole world is under Sharia, and doesn't actually mention a caliphate, which is why Osama bin Laden decided to declare his own jihad and found ready followers. When Muslims immigrate from the Muslim world, they bring the Quran with them, along with Sharia, and as seen in Europe their modus operandi is to refuse to assimilate and instead create "Stans" of concentrated Muslim population where there is de facto Sharia for them, then work to subvert the local govt. All this shows that the real problem Congress needs to address is to declare a moratorium on immigration from the Muslim world until it truly changes as shown by dropping Islam as the official religion, abolishing Sharia, and opening up to other religions. Until then there are very real battle lines, and to ignore them is tantamount to national suicide. So it's not about our tolerance, it's about their intolerance. Mass Muslim immigration has only been happening for a short time, and already we have the Ft. Hood Massacre, the Times Square Bomber, etc. Just how many of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the Muslim world do we need to move here anyway, 500 million? If they reach even 10% of the population, history shows that in country after country they change from the wolf in sheep's clothing act to open civil war, as in Lebanon. So it's not ignorant or unnecessary to guard the U.S. with laws against Sharia, it's a matter of survival in the face of a total world domination ideology whose god and prophet are archenemies of the Constitution and forever conflict the loyalties of any Muslim living here. Read the Historyscoper's Islam Watch Blog.
12:25 a.m., March 19, 2011
Brian said:
Sharia is a fact of life many places in the world. While it may be a benign force governing relations between co-coreligionists in many instances, its many harsh, negative attributes are not a fiction of the imagination. I'm surprised one of our public servants - not to mention a professor of religious studies - would be so obtuse on this point. Obviously, Missouri does not face the serious prospect of sharia anytime soon. However, at the local level, where there are significant Islamic populations (be it in this state, another state, or another country), such a prospect could be more real, and pre-empting its realization does not seem irrational, so long as that can be done in a way that is intelligent and fair-minded. For anyone rushing to defend sharia or Muslims, please research sharia and its practical applications (such as the legal standing of women or of non-Muslims) before piling on politically correct platitudes praising Islam and condemning anybody daring to question the social-political extensions of its religious tenets (i.e., sharia). This bill probably doesn't merit a lot of time, but it does seem to merit actual consideration, and not pious, progressive posturing.
11:30 a.m., March 29, 2011
John said:
"For anyone rushing to defend sharia or Muslims, please research sharia and its practical applications (such as the legal standing of women or of non-Muslims) before piling on politically correct platitudes praising Islam and condemning anybody daring to question the social-political extensions of its religious tenets (i.e., sharia)." And the United States of America remains the only industrialized, democratic, developed country in the world that uses capital punishment. Only two other industrialized countries have legal capital punishment: South Korea and Japan. And there is a moratorium in effect in South Korea. American politicians are currently trying to assure that gay couples are not able to have the same legal standing as heterosexual couples. Condemning Sharia is like condemning Democracy or, to push it further, Christianity, as a basis of law just because a powerful, Christian-based Democracy uses savage means to punish criminals and condemns those who disagree with its religious tenets by limiting their legal standing. It's a specious argument. TL Winslow's comments on Islam could be applied to Christianity too. How did "Christendom" get so big?
7:13 a.m., March 18, 2011
john said:
what a rubbish articale does not matter what you think the end of islam is near