Kansas becomes latest US state to stop courts from using Sharia
The law has been dubbed the "Sharia bill" because critics say it targets the legal code proscribed by Islam. Sharia, or Islamic law, covers all aspects of Muslim life, including religious obligations, financial dealings and social contracts. Opponents of the ban say they could nullify wills or legal contracts between Muslims reached by following the Sharia.
Supporters said the law will reassure foreigners in Kansas that state laws and the US Constitution would protect them. Opponents said it singled out Muslims for ridicule and was unnecessary because American laws prevail on US soil.
Sherriene Jones-Sontag, a spokeswoman for the governor, said in an e-mail that the bill "makes it clear that Kansas courts will rely exclusively on the laws of our state and our nation when deciding cases and will not consider the laws of foreign jurisdictions."
Legislators supporting the bill said there were many cases around the country where judges or state agencies cited Sharia law in deciding cases, especially those involving divorce-related custody and property matters where Islamic code differs from US law.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Washington denounced the Kansas law and said it is considering legal action.
About 20 states have considered similar legislation but the Kansas law is the only one signed in recent weeks, council spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said.
"It's unfortunate the governor chose to pander to the growing Islam-phobia in our society that has led to introduction of similar unconstitutional and un-American legislation in dozens of state legislatures," Hooper said.
Hooper said legislators have often referred to Sharia law in supporting such legislation, but he said they take the word out of the bill to stave off legal challenges. The Kansas bill does not mention Sharia specifically.
Federal courts had earlier struck down an Oklahoma law which voters approved in 2010 and barred state judges from considering Sharia law in making decisions. The court called the law discriminatory.
COMMENTS (10)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1732569774-0/Baymax-(2)1732569774-0-165x106.webp "article")
@American Desi: to John B. "For example there are rabbinical courts dispensing justice for some Jewish people. Religion needs to be kept far away from policy making and public sphere! " Why does religion "need to be kept far away" from dispute resolution? There is no rationale for such an arbitrary conclusion. In any case, resolution of disputes between individuals or even individual entities is neither in the policy-making nor in the public sphere. Like consensual sex, it is outside the public domain and entirely dependent on the two litigants concerned. As we say colloquially: "Jab Mian-Biwi raazi, kya karega Qazi?". There should be no objection to resolution of disputes under any system mutually agreed upon, whether rabbinical, sharia or whatever. Having said that, if and when the dispute does spill out into the public domain, it should be resolved according to the public law, not adjudicated on the basis whether the terms under which it had been adjudicated earlier were correctly applied or not. The problem with Indian judicial system is that it recognizes religious law of each community and therefore is laborious and time-consuming almost to distraction. Disputes take decades to resolve and justice is denied because in all cases it always comes delayed.
Any foreigner living abroad has to respect the legal system and customs of his host country. One just hopes that the rule of law and justice prevail.
@Khalid Pathan: @Cautious:
"Don't come to US" is un-American.
I welcome all Muslims and non Muslims to come to US either in search of want and / or to escape from tyranny and oppression of mind, body and spirit. But don't demand special privilege because you are different, since no one is special in America. There are deficiencies in the system, far from ideal, yet it is better than all the other places combined.
@John B: I agree with you 100% but unfortunately there are others in US who consider themselves exceptional. For example there are rabbinical courts dispensing justice for some Jewish people. Religion needs to be kept far away from policy making and public sphere!
Demanding Shariah to be enforced has always been a profitable 'toe-dipping-in-water' exercise for the immigrant community.
If the people protest against it, you can cry hoarse saying they are Islamaphobic. They will get aghast and back off, and at this time, you can come up with more 'less-drastic' demands, like free land for Mosques and separate areas in universities for praying. Win-Win situation !
India must bring Uniform Civil Code as well !
Its nothing pure bigotry and haterd behind this bill, Sharia is a very powerful ideology, and all you are doing with your hatered and bigotry is making people more attracted to it. You more you try to supress something, the more people are going to want to see what it is.
If you want Sharia law then don't go to the USA --- pretty simple. BTW wasn't it a component of Sharia law that allowed Davis to walk free?
Sorry, in US every one is under the same law. There is no religious law specialty treatment, Muslim or non Muslim. If muslims want sharia law(civil law ) then they are going to divide the peace of US.
Mormon tried it in Utah long time ago.
We know where it is going, first it is on family law, then property, then marriage, right of polygamy, then Halal meat demand in school lunch, then religious holiday rituals, -forget it.
Americans learnt the lesson from Europe.
Kansas state has done the right thing. For those residents who belong to a different religion there should be no special provision. Being a free country such Muslims who think that they cannot live without the Sharia law, they must look for one country where Sharia law is practiced and move out to that country, provided that country is willing to accept them.