Sharia? In America?
It can never happen here, right?
Its not happening at all:
“I think it’s a solution in search of a problem,”- saidÂ North Carolina State Representative Joe Hackney in response to that state’s proposed anti-Sharia law.
But then it happened, again:
“I think it’s a solution in search of a problem,” saidÂ North Carolina State Representative Joe Hackney in response to that state’s proposed anti-Sharia law. Well, Hackney, here is your problem.
“Will Calls for Distribution ‘According to Islamic Laws and Sharia’; Pennsylvania Court Gives Twice as Much to Each Son as to Each Daughter,” by Eugene Volokh atÂ The Volokh Conspiracy, April 29 (thanks to JWÂ 16 Comments)
But somehow, when one opposes the sharia the useful idiots quickly get into attack mode:
That seems to be what happened in Alkhafaji v. TIAA-CREF Individual and Instit. Services LLC, 2010 WL 1435056 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Jan. 14, 2010), which is now on appeal. I’m posting about this now because the briefs were just posted on Westlaw, and confirm the details of the will, as well as giving some extra perspective on the disputes related to what Sharia law provides in such situations.Prof. Abbass Alkhafaji died, and left a will that apparently said, in relevant part,
(4) About my pension, the beneficiaries are all my biological kids and my current wife, … after reducing all costs associated with the house…. [The] rest of the pension, if any left, should be divided according to Islamic Laws and Sharia….(9) In case I have additional monetary benefits from my job, such as life insurance, 401K, 403B or any other retirement funds that I am not aware of, Allah as my witness, They should be divided, after costs associated with the payment of those funds according to Islamic Laws and “Sharia.”
The trial court entered an order that concluded with, “(1) TIAA-CREF Individual and Institutional Services LLC, shall make distribution of the pension accounts of the TIAA-CREF certificates … to the decedent’s surviving spouse, … in accordance with decedent’s last will and testament dated July 17, 2007, and to his biological children, … in accordance of the law of Sharia, mainly [sic], one-eighth share to the surviving spouse, … and thereafter, the remaining balance to be divided, two shares each to the six male children, and one share each to the [two] female children.”
Now if Prof. Alkhafaji had specified in his will that he was leaving a 1/8 share to his wife, and then 1/8 to each of his sons and 1/16 to each of his daughters, that would be fine, regardless of whether his motivation was religious or secular. […] People are free to discriminate based on sex, religion, race, and so on in their wills, including in their gifts to their children.
But apparently the will had no such specific provision; rather, it called for distribution under religious law. This raises two questions:
(1) May a court interpret a will â€” or a contract, deed, trust instrument, or what have you â€” that calls for the application of religious law (whether Islamic law, Jewish law, canon law, or any other religious law)? Or does the Establishment Clause preclude courts from deciding what, say, Islamic law actually requires, at least if there’s a controversy between the parties about what the “true” interpretation of the religious law should be? […]
Here’s my tentative answer to question (1), based on an earlier post: I think courts must refuse to interpret religious terms of wills and other such documents, because of what I call the No Religious Decisions strand of Establishment Clause caselaw. Here’s a very brief summary of that strand: In a long line of cases (such as Presbyterian Church in the United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church (1969)), the Supreme Court held that secular courts may not resolve religious questions, such as which rival church group most closely follows orthodox church teachings. Some states had rules, borrowed from English law, under which the more orthodox group would get to keep the church property, presumably on the theory that this would be more in keeping with what was intended by past donors to the church. But the Court held that such rules may not constitutionally be applied by civil courts…
Won’t be long before any opposition to Islam is an anti-Muslim crime in the US of A:
U.S. Attorney: Feds Could Challenge Missouri Anti-Sharia Legislation
â€‹U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Richard Callahan visited the Islamic Foundation of Greater St. Louis last night to address the fears and frustrations of Muslim Americans who worry they are being racially profiled and wiretapped — and to assure them that the Missouri Legislature’s attempts to ban Sharia law from being considered in state courts here could face Constitutional challenges.
Never ending grievance theater:
Seated in front of a large Muslim audience during a town hall-style meeting at the Ballwin mosque, Callahan anchored a panel that included fellow federal attorneys (one of whom was Muslim American), as well as three members of the FBI.
The tenor of the night was polite and respectful, but several members of the crowd expressed anger over what they perceive to be rising trends of Islamophobia in America over the past couple years, citing people burning the Koran and communities banning mosques as examples.
“There is a worse kind of Muslim hatred recently,” said Adil Imdad, one of the event’s organizers. “Especially in the last two years, Islamophobia and fear-mongering have been spreading like wildfire, and it’s causing a lot of stress for our youth.”
The problem is now hitting a little closer to home, said Imdad, pointing to three bills currently circulating through the state legislature that seek to limit Sharia law (Islamic law) in Missouri courts. Sharia law could come into play in rulings considering child custody or prisoner rights for Muslims. As we’ve reported, the bills haveÂ become a source of controversy.
Callahan responded by hinting that, should anti-Sharia legislation get passed by the Missouri Legislature, it could be overturned by the federal courts. “The Department of Justice has a good history of challenging laws passed by state legislatures,” he said. “If some laws are passed, I think you will see challenges by the federal government on the constitutionality of them.”
Audience members also pressed Callahan to respond to instances of being detained and questioned on return trips to America. They asked why the media doesn’t seem to cover hate crimes against Muslims, whether their phones are being tapped, and why women wearing hijabs seem to receive automatic pat-downs from TSA agents at airports.
“We come back to the United States and become personae non gratae,” said an audience member, addressing the FBI representatives on the stage. “We are detained endlessly for the stamps on our passports.”
Zia Faruqui, the Muslim American attorney on the panel, spoke to the crowd using several Arabic phrases, encouraging them to avoid hiding. He defended the justice system, citing 50 prosecutions in recent years against people charged with anti-Muslim crimes.