Written by Richard Butrick   

In a recent op-ed in NYT, Eliyahu Stern, an assistant professor of religious studies and history at Yale, argued against the pending legislative efforts in over a dozen states to ban the use of Shariah law in American courts. Stern claims “The crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority.”

Undermines American democracy?

I can find no argument in the piece backing up this claim. Since the issue is about our legal system not about democracy, the foregoing claim is so far a field it is not surprising he has no argument to back it up. If anything, Shariah is antithetical to democracy - certainly Shariah does not countenance amendments to its laws by a democratic voting process.

Ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation?

If anything, banning the use of Shariah as a special provision just for Islam should be seen as an attempt to remove a barriers to assimilation. If Muslims in the US must live by a different set of laws than the rest of US citizenry - this helps the assimilation?

This creates a dangerous divide between America and Muslims?

Ditto the above. The divide is having Muslims live by a separate legal system

Stern proceeds to advance some additional “arguments” or considerations that he feels buttress his position.

(a) Shariah would only be used in settling personal matters not covered by US law

Stern argues that banning appeal to Shariah law in US courts “would curtail Muslims from settling disputes over dietary laws and marriage through religious arbitration….”

Actually if Shariah law is only going to be used in matters which do not run counter to US law then such disputes would not end up in US courts. This cuts both ways. If Shariah is only to be used in matters not covered by US law then there is hardly any point in banning it. Equally trying to ban the banning is stupid. Could it be that both sides know that Shariah will be used to attempt to override US laws?

(b) The Judeo-Christian ethic demands welcoming Islam into the religious tapestry of American life

“Respecting differences and accentuating commonalities among Jews, Catholics and Protestants” is central to the Judeo-Christian ethic as is the “Abrahamic ethic that welcomes Islam into the religious tapestry of American life.”

Since when has the court system been part of the “religious tapestry of American life”? We do not go the court house to pray. Attorneys do not read from the Bible or Halakha to make their points or influence the jury. It is called separation of church and state and that includes the legal system. In so far as Islam is glued and tethered to Shariah and Shariah trumps civil law, it is Islam that has the problem. Welcoming Islam as a religion (part of the “Religious tapestry”) does not entail placing Shariah law above civil law. Moreover, religious freedom does not mean the necessity of individual Americans rolling out the welcome mat to any or all religions. Individual Americans can welcome Islam or not as they see fit - within the bounds of non-actionable behavior.

(c) Forbidding Shariah law in the U.S. would amount to “legally sanctioned discrimination.”

This argument would have relevance if “laws” of other religions were used in US courts. Since no religion except Islam is clamoring for the right to appeal to a legal system tethered to its religion, the discrimination argument is vacuous.

(d) American Muslims are not to blame for extreme Muslims groups in the Middle East

Ergo what? Ok. Detroit Muslims are not to blame for suicide bombings in the Middle East therefore Shariah should be used in US courts? This argument is so far a field no critical analysis can make its stupidity more obvious than it already is.

The American Islamic Leadership Coalition, in a forceful statement, has presented arguments that point out that appeal to Shariah law in US courts will do the exact opposite of what Stern claims.

Forcing Shariah law on Muslims is a “poor and clumsy attempt at making ordinary Muslim Americans feel alien in their own homeland, while creating a rift between Muslims and the rest of our country.” Moreover, “American Muslims [should] live in freedom and safety, in accordance with our constitutional principles, and not be enveloped by the tentacles of medieval, man-made laws that have been falsely accorded divine status.’

It goes on to condemn playing the race card in defense of Shariah and is worth reading in its entirety.