Evangelicals Against Sharia Bans

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, recently promoted an article on an evangelical website seeking to convince Christians to oppose bans on Sharia-based rulings. The author joined other Christian activists in reciting the talking points of the very Islamists that make the laws necessary

The August 19 article titled “The Dangers of Anti-Sharia Laws” was written by Joe Carter, an editor for the Gospel Coalition and senior editor at the Action Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. He is also the online editor for First Things and an adjunct professor of journalism at Patrick Henry College.

The Gospel Coalition, whose website published the article, describes itself as a “fellowship of evangelical churches…On the one hand, we are troubled by the idolatry of personal con-sumerism and the politicization of faith; on the other hand, we are distressed by the unchallenged acceptance of theological and moral relativism.”

Carter wrote the article in reaction to anti-Sharia legislation that was passed by the voters of Oklahoma and then blocked by a judge. He argues that Christians should oppose these measures entirely because “By helping to push the idea that religious beliefs should be kept private, anti-Sharia laws are a threat to all our religious liberties.”

He argues that Sharia is only introduced into the court system as “contract law” where litigants agree to have their dispute settled in such a way. The enforcement of Sharia-based arbitration rulings is no different than similar arrangements for Christians and Jews, in his opinion.

“If we don’t want biblical principles to be terms excluded from [the] American court system, then we can’t let Sharia be excluded either,” Carter concludes.

In taking this viewpoint, Carter takes the position of CAIR and some other evangelical leaders like Pastor Joel C. Hunter of Florida’s Northland Church. Hunter argues that this type of legislation is an “unnecessary law that increases bias and heightens animosity between Christians and Muslims.”

The Christian opponents of these measures are not taking aim at only the Oklahoma version. They oppose them altogether, but reference the Oklahoma bill as proof that they are on the right side. The American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) model legislation that is serving as a model in other states is improved.

As my article written with Christopher Holton explains, ALAC is not discriminatory. It does not once mention Islam or Sharia. It is a broad protection against foreign law. In fact, the majority of the cases this would affect involve the victimization of Muslim-Americans. The American Public Policy Alliance website has a FAQ section that substantively responds to legal questions surrounding the legislation.

The second part of the debate is about the necessity of the bill. It is often assumed that the legislation is redundant because it stops abuses that are already prohibited by the Constitution. The reality is more complex.

The website explains:

“Most states merely state that foreign laws and judgments that violate the state’ s “public policy” shall not be recognized. But the courts consistently rule that the state legislature has the responsibility to articulate clearly what the state’s public policy actually is.”

We’re not talking about a theoretical violation. In 2011, the Center for Security Policy released a study called Shariah in American Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. It documented 50 instances where Sharia-based legislation from 16 countries influenced the court case.

“These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process.  These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah.  When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded,” the study states.

The American Public Policy Alliance highlights 10 cases where Muslim-American families found themselves in a conflict between the U.S. Constitution and Sharia. The review found that “In cases 1-3, the Appellate Courts upheld Shariah law; in cases 4-7, the Trial Courts upheld Shariah, but the Appellate Courts reversed (protecting the litigant’s constitutional rights); in cases 8-10, both Trial and Appellate Courts rejected the attempts to enforce Shariah law.”

This is why the proposed legislation has gotten some Muslim support. In 2010, the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy endorsed the Oklahoma bill.

“As Americans we believe in the Constitution, the Establishment Clause, and our one law system. [The ban] reaffirms the First Amendment to the Constitution and prevents the establishment or empowerment of a foreign legal system like the specific Sharia legal systems implemented in many Muslim majority nations and in western Sharia courts seen in places like Britain,” the Muslim group stated.

The Muslim group based their decision on what Europe has seen from the introduction of Sharia into the court system. The Civitas think tank found in 2009 that there were 85 Sharia courts in the United Kingdom, some with very troublesome rulings.

Another British study concluded, “There is neither control over the appointment of these judges nor an independent monitoring mechanism. People often do not have access to legal advice and representation. Proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgments. Nor is there any real right to appeal.”

In July 2011, the British Ministry of Justice ended an investigation of the Sharia courts because of a lack of cooperation from them. It reported, “Despite all efforts to package Sharia’s civil code as mundane, its imposition represents a concerted attempt by Islamists to gain further influence in Britain.”

It is healthy for non-Muslims to debate how to best prevent these incidents, but inaccurate claims of anti-Muslim bias prevent that from happening. The supporters of American Laws for American Courts are driven by a desire to protect all citizens, including the Muslim-American community that has the most to fear from Sharia-based rulings.

This article was sponsored by the Institute on Religion and Democracy.