The Treachery of Considering Sharia Law

Last Tuesday, a controversial amendment to Oklahoma’s state constitution prohibiting state courts from considering Sharia law when deciding cases passed with an amazing 70 percent of the vote. Critics of the bill – Muslims and liberal bloggers – are calling the measure a pre-emptive strike. I must agree with them, that it is a pre-emptive strike, but that is exactly what the country needs. They are also saying that the bill is unnecessary, because Sharia law is not being considered by courts. This is a lie.

            In a recent New Jersey trial court decision, S.D. v. M.J.R., a judge applied Sharia law to a case of domestic abuse between a Muslim man and wife, ruling that the husband could not be held accountable for the rape of his wife under Sharia law. The judge reasoned that the defendant’s actions were “consistent with his [religious] practices.” If rape is a normal practice in a religion, then maybe the practice of that religion and the imposition of its laws should be prohibited.

In 2008, the immigrant couple were wed in Morocco in an arrange marriage. After coming to the United States, the husband began to pinch, beat, and rape his wife. The wife stated in court that she “felt he was enjoying hurting” her. Evidence was brought into the trial proving that the husband had told his wife, “You must do whatever I tell you to do. I want to hurt your flesh” and “this is according to our religion. You are my wife; I can do anything to you.” The defendant’s Imam testified that, under Sharia law, a wife cannot refuse her husband’s sexual advances. She apparently refused, so he raped her. As justification, he told her that, “I am doing [this] to correct you.” I hope our Department of Corrections does not apply these standards to the treatment of their women inmates, because I’m sure the ACLU would be all over the government if that was the case. Luckily this horrendous ruling was reversed by a New Jersey appellate court, so the Sharia victory was short lived.

It may not always be this way, though. Sharia law may be used as a standard in more courts if laws, like the measure in Oklahoma, are not passed to prevent it. These laws also need to be enacted immediately, as the Muslim in the presence in the legislature is likely to grow in the coming years. As of now, there are only two Muslim Representatives in Congress – Andre Carson (D – IN) and Keith Ellison (D – MN). This, however, could change with the growing Muslim population; therefore, it is paramount we thwart Muslims in their pursuits of political and legal power in America. In 2008, former U.S. Representative Virgil Goode (R – VA) stated that to avoid more Keith Ellisons from being elected, that we cannot allow “persons from the Middle East to come to this country.” I feel that he is right, because the less Muslim politicians, the least likely it will be that Sharia law is considered in American courts.

Judges have ruled in the past that prayer in school is an affront to the Constitution. But now they have ruled that adopting a religious law that promotes violence towards innocents is the correct way to proceed. And they are doing this while Muslim politicians are being elected in non-Islamic states. Laws prohibiting the consideration of Sharia law, the influx of more Muslim immigrants, and the spread of Islamic power are vital if we are to halt the perfidious spread of Sharia law into American law.