Political India: Engaging America

When Muneer Awad, Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, heard that his state had passed a new law banning the consideration of Sharia law when deciding certain cases, he felt the his right to religious freedom, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, being eroded.

When he launched a legal case against the so called “Save our State Amendment” passed in November 2010 by an overwhelming majority of Oklahomans, he was pleasantly surprised to discover that the U.S. justice system agreed with him.

U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange in Denver immediately issued an order blocking the implementation of the amendment, also known as “State Question 755” on the grounds that the plaintiff “made a strong showing that... [the] amendment's primary effect inhibits religion and that the amendment fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion”.

She added that while the defendants contended that the amendment would be applied more broadly to state courts in terms of banning them from applying the law of other nations and cultures, regardless of what faith they may be based on, “the actual language of the amendment... may be viewed as specifically singling out Sharia Law, conveying a message of disapproval of plaintiff's faith”.

This week a higher appeals court, the tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling by Judge Miles-Lagrange and it noted, “The amendment bans only one form of religious law — Sharia law.”

It further picked apart the defendants' arguments to suggest that the ban was general rather than specific to Islamic law.

Earlier the co-authors of SQ755, Republicans Rex Duncan and Anthony Sykes were quoted as saying, “Sharia law coming to the U.S. is a scary concept... SQ 755 will constitute a pre-emptive strike against Sharia law coming to Oklahoma.” In reality, critics of the “Save our State Amendment” argued the right of judges to consider Sharia or other laws applies in personal cases between individuals when such law is chosen as the means for settling a dispute. For example, if a conflict arose between family members, prior to embarking on litigation, a court could appoint a mediator if the parties were willing. In some cases, Muslims would have the right to turn to Sharia to guide them towards a settlement.

The amendment passed in Oklahoma would have closed out such an option, a direct denial of religious freedom according to the two judgements passed in the case.

In email comments to The Hindu, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, head of the Cordoba Initiative and the Islamic cultural centre at New York City's Ground Zero site, welcomed the latest rulings.

The Imam said, “What a wonderful declaration for religious freedom in the U.S. with the federal court of appeals recognising that this amendment violated freedom of religion and violated the constitutional rights of Muslims who practice Sharia law.”

He said Islamic Law was generally and specifically compatible with the American Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and political system.

“Recently we have heard many examples of bigotry and Islamophobic comments, this ruling is a reminder of the rights upheld in the U.S. Constitution for all citizens,” he said.