In terms of the legal ban of Sharia law. I think I’m leaning towards supporting the ban because the bill mentions that it should only be excluded from the legal courtroom setting as should not be used in forming legislative decisions. The bill does not infringe on being practicing from in the private sector and Muslims still have the opportunity to practice their beliefs in accordance to Sharia, it just can not be used in a court of law. Also I believe the ban may be more justified because it makes the Constitution the Supreme law of the law instead of specifically banning Sharia law.
Unlike the Oklahoma Law, SQ 755, which specifically banned only Sharia law and was deemed unconstitutional because of how it was discriminatory against a specific religion. Based on certain things I have read and watched, it suggests that the two legal systems can not coexist and that many of their values infringe upon another. Therefore, suggesting to make the Constitution the supreme law of the land would clarify which rules to follow and which ones one should be held reliable to in a court of law and forming legislative decisions.
With further readings, it appears An-Na’im uggests that historical precedents in India, Turkey and Indonesia suggest that Sharia would not function as a Supreme law of the land to hold reliable too, but that does not prohibit Muslims from practicing their guidelines in private to hold themselves to a standard. If the proposed law does seem to directly interfere with freedom of exercise clause and establishment clause then I would probably have to change the way I argue this case, but since this law seems to more neutral in its wording so it might have the possibility of being successful.
This law also seemed to compel interest of the government by irectly interfering with the safety of American citizens, so in a sense the law might have seemed “necessary and proper. ” Based on other studies it seems that many Muslim-Americans would prefer to actually live under Sharia law, but many other Americans tend to support the common American ideals. It seems that the law would make official what the majority of Americans think it official.
It for these reasons of historical precedent in other countries, this law is unlike the law passed in Oklahoma, it does not single out Islam, in and of itself, would seem necessary, and it does not prohibit people from practicing heir religion in their private households, that I think I will support the ban. Fox News “Muslims Want Sharia Law in Non-Muslim Countries Robert Spencer”. Filmed [June 2015]. YouTube video, 9:52. Posted [June 2015]. https://www. youtube. com/watch? v=q0FpDCZdvHk. This video contains an interview from Fox News that describes how some people think it would be better to live under Sharia law in the United States.
Ami Horowitz interviews a few Muslims in Minnesota who believe that Sharia law would be better and approve of and idea that would prohibit making fun of Muhammad. The interviewer then goes on the question hether or not that they should regulate the people who live in America, and almost force them to hold to the American ideas. He brings in the director of Jihad watch, who does suggest that immigrants should assimilate and hold to American ideals. The director cites a few studies where the data suggests that the majority of mosques in the United States teach that Sharia law is superior to the Constitution and must be replaced.
A man from the House of Islamic Wisdom wants to suggest otherwise. This video will aid by showing what Muslims living in the United States think of living in a system of Sharia law. This video also shows what certain American’s think about living under a system that infringes upon their ideals. Also a prominent Muslim figure appears to try and defend the use of Sharia law in the United States. In addition he wants to suggest that many Muslim people follow the laws set forth in the United States and many work in this country without questioning these laws.
The video does suggest that many mosques teach that Sharia law is superior to the Constitution and should be replaced, so it would give a perspective on what both non-Muslim-Americans and Muslim-Americans think about a proposed Sharia law system. Grunert, Jeremy. “How Do You Solve A Problem Like Sharia? Awad v. Ziriax and the Question of Sharia Law in America. ” Pepperdine Law Review 40, no. 3 (April 8, 2013). Accessed February 14, 2017. http://digitalcommons. pepperdine. edu/cgi/ viewcontent. cgi? article=2133&context=plr.
This journal entry from the pepperdine law review describes what Sharia law is and also summarizes the court case of Awad. Ziriax. The author, Jeremy Grunert, begins by describing the sources of Islamic law and talks about the madhhabs or Islamic Law schools. In the entry Grunert, talks about the freedom of eligion under the 1st amendment and the establishment and free exercise clauses. He discusses the unconstitutionality of the law SQ 755, and sums up by saying it ultimately discriminated against a single religion so it involved using the Larson test.
Grunert also goes on the to mention ideas of counterterrorism legislation and the future impacts of this court decision. This journal entry will greatly aid in my paper because it analyzes a failed law to ban sharia law. By digging into this court case of Awad. Ziriax one can analyze whether or not this proposed bill is constitutional. This source will probably be one the most helpful because it tells of why the law that “banned” Sharia law was deemed unconstitutional and it appears this was mainly because of its discriminatory actions toward a particular religion.
This source also lays out the future implications of the decision, so it could lay out possible foundations for how a proposed “ban” would take place or how something like this would never happen. Lastly, this case also talks about the law’s boundaries when it comes to the establishment clause and freedom of exercise clause which will help address whether or ot the proposed bill infringes upon religious rights. Hussain, Murad. “Defending the Faithful: Speaking the Language of Group Harm in Free Exercise Challenges to Counterterrorism Profiling. ”
The Yale Law Journal 117, no. 5 (2008): 920. Accessed February 14, 2017. doi:10. 2307/20455814. Hussain, in this entry puts up the evidence for and against counterterrorism initiatives and the basis behind them. He brings up the legal boundaries of profiling people to engage in illegal activities that can harm United States citizens. Hussain describes how Muslims try to assimilate into an American ifestyle to make themselves seem like less of a threat. This describes about not only how Muslims can view other Muslims ,but also how non-Muslims view Muslim Americans. He mentions that when civic participation of profiling can damage a Muslim’s credibility.
Hussain throughout the rest of the entry attempts to discuss ways to resolve this issue, as well as propose ways of counterterrorism without infringing on the rights of free speech and the freedom of religion. He also proposes several hybrid solution to this dilemma people are trying to solve. This source will aid in my overall project because it mainly ddresses counterterrorism issues which appears to be the ultimate goal of the proposed bill. This source also addresses Muslim prejudices and how based on preconceived notions of Muslims and Islamic law could affect the way people seem about this law.
Hussain also brings up the viewpoint of trying to assimilate other religious beliefs in with the law, such as Amish beliefs and separating from a school system. This outside viewpoint might bring information to the table so see what solution should be brought when dealing with Sharia law and hybrid solution to it. Lastly, this source will help because it gives upport for how the first amendment can lead to culture profiling and how to balance the free exercise clause with protecting American people. Na°aim, °Abd Allaah Aohmad.
Islam and the Secular State. Cambridge , MA: Harvard University Press, 2008. Islam and the Secular State attempts to describe that any particular nation state can not enforce Sharia as public law. However, the author, An-Na’im, does mention that Sharia should expected to be followed by Muslims as a religious duty. An-Na’im argues that Sharia can not be publicly enforced for many reasons, but begins doing so by analyzing the idea of a ecular state throughout Islamic history instead of a modern day or post-twentieth century model.
Next, An-Na’im analyzes how a constitution, public law, and human rights work together to regulate human behavior and see if Sharia is capable of doing so. He then begins to analyze secularism and Islamic law as it has been practiced in the countries of India, Turkey and Indonesia. He sees how the different systems played out and analyzed their effectiveness. Lastly, An-Na’im tries to summarize his findings and say whether or not Sharia could work as a law system in the future. This book will ultimately aid a great deal to the paper since it argues that a system of public law and Sharia law can not coexist.
This book analyzes what exactly a secular state is and how Muslims have lived in one throughout history. Based on the historical precedents it appears that Sharia law could not coexist in certain lands and so therefore it should not be expected for the system to exist under American law. Based on his one chapter about constitutions, human rights and citizenship, the two could not coexist. He does however continue to mention that Muslims should still be able to worship as they please, hich the proposed bill also states.
He just mentions that Sharia can not stand a legal system and therefore should not be held as a standard when making legislative decisions. Winsor, Ben . “Q&A descends into shouting match over Sharia Law, Muslim ban. ” SBS. February 14, 2017. Accessed February 15, 2017. http://www. sbs. com. au/news/article/2017/02/14/qadescends-shouting-match-over-sharia-law-muslim-ban. The article also includes a video, but essentially there were a panel of people discussing Sharia law, and one them states that “anybody who supports Sharia Law in this country should be deported.
The young Muslim speaks out greatly against that statement and argues that people have very little knowledge about Sharia law and Islam in general. She mentions that Islam to her is an extremely feminist religion and mentions how it gave women equal rights before Europe did. The Senator she was debating suggests that one should only follow the Supreme law of the land. The young girl responds that Sharia law says to follow the law of the land that you live in. She talks about how she feels hurt that people think differently of her because of her faith and where she was born.
If I can get the video to work it will help greatly, but this shows two people debating on whether or not to ban Sharia law in the country of Australia. One person suggests that the people who do not believe in Australian law should be deported, but one Muslim disagrees. This article will help show what Muslims think about a supposed Sharia ban, but the Muslim in this article seems to think it would ban her from practicing her religion which the bill does not do.
This article would show that people need to be educated on what exactly Sharia law entails and provide examples on to what could be done in response to a ban. I think this article would show the effects that a proposed ban would have on people. It would not only impact people in terms of how they practice, but also change their perception around the world as Trump’s executive order did. I might add another source, but I’ve been so swamped with work and studying that this is all I had the chance to put together.