It is time to stand up for American rule of law and individual rights for all. And Montana is doing just that. This is Montana’s version of an anti-Sharia law bill, modeled off similar legislation that has passed in Louisiana, Kansas and Tennessee.
This should be the proverbial no-brainer. And yet the fact that such laws are met with so much resistance, both overt and covert, indicates how very needed they are.
How can anyone oppose a law that seeks to prevent foreign laws from undermining fundamental constitutional liberties? We now have groups that has ever come to this country with a ready-made model of society and government they believe to be superior to what we have here and are working to institute it.
For example, Islamic law contravenes American freedoms in numerous particulars.
We have seen sharia law in New Jersey. Back in July 2010, a Muslim husband raped his wife, and the judge determined that no sexual assault occurred because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex on demand from their husbands. Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court was not allowed to stand—this time. But there have been over a hundred cases of Sharia jurisprudence in the US, and Jeffery Mittman of the ACLU has testified that “all have been overturned by a higher courts, therefore there is no problem since the American constitutional system worked.” Of course, this begs the question of why should this have happened in the first place. Secondly, it is simply not true that all cases have been overturned. In fact, there are cases in California and Maryland in which trial courts were overturned by appellate courts, the latter of which turned the blind eye to the threat from sharia.
The irony is that the ACLU would oppose a law that seeks to prevent foreign laws from undermining fundamental constitutional liberties.
Legal expert David Yerushalmi, a pioneering legal authority in the drafting of such state laws, points out that “the global jihad leadership against which we have aligned most of our military and intelligence resources since 9/11 informs us in Arabic, Pashtu, Urdu, Persian, and even in English that the global jihad against the West is fundamentally directed and determined by Islamic law, or sharia. The jihad leaders further tell us that their ultimate goal, in addition to that of the ‘defensive jihad’ incumbent on every Muslim to rid the Islamic world of an occupying infidel presence is the implementation of sharia law as the law of the land in any place Muslims step foot.”
“Surveys in the Muslim world consistently evidence that somewhere between 50% to 70% of the global Muslim community desires to create a unified Caliphate for all Muslims and to order that political hegemony according to a strict al Qaeda-like sharia.”
The separation of mosque and state is essential to preserving American freedom and our way of life. Yet the Islamic supremacists have made real inroads. We have seen over the last few years the encroachment of Islam on the secular marketplace. Muslims have demanded, and received, special accommodation in public schools, in the workplace, in our government, and in privately owned businesses.
One only needs to look at the disintegration of Europe and the establishment all over that continent of enclaves in which Sharia is enforced and the law of the land disregarded, to glimpse a bleak future made possible by “good intentions” and the failure of multiculturalism. In those areas of Europe, women and non-Muslims suffer institutionalized discrimination, and there is no freedom of speech or freedom of conscience.
“‘Anti-Sharia Law’ Bill Passes In Montana House Judiciary,” by Jason Le Miere, International Business Times, March 14, 2017:
A bill to ban foreign laws in Montana courts that many have described as an anti-Sharia law bill, passed the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Monday. Senate Bill 97, which passed along party lines by an 11-8 vote, will now move to the House floor for debate.
Although the bill does not specifically mention Sharia law, the term was used by both those supporting and opposing it during hearings, Montana Public Radio reported. Opponents claimed that the law would further anti-Muslim sentiment, while proponents argued that Sharia law could be used as a defense to abuse women or marry minors.
Republican Representative Seth Berglee conceded that he was not aware of any such instances in Montana but said that he had been informed of examples in other states where people attempted to get the court to enforce foreign laws.
“It might not be a problem in Montana but we make prospective laws all the time,” Burgle said. “So I think this is a good bill.”
Supporters of such bills often point to a New Jersey case from 2009 when a family court judge ruled that a woman could not be granted a restraining order against her husband who had sexually assaulted her, based on Sharia law. However, the verdict was later overturned.
Similar foreign or Sharia law bills have been introduced in a number of states in recent years, [sic]
The American Civil Liberties Union has argued that such laws are unconstitutional….
“This effort is not solving a problem, but it is simply based on an out-of-state model in policy that is a direct reaction to Islamophobia and it is an underhanded effort to spread an alarmist message about Islam in order to keep Muslims in the United States on the margins,” Rachel Carroll Rivas, co-director of the Montana Human Rights Network, said. “This is simply a policy rooted in xenophobia that is unfounded and unfair.”