Den som ønsker å innføre Sharia i Alabama bør ha skuddsikker vest, og bo i en tanks.
Noen ganger kan det være greit å tenke litt. Amerikansk rettspraksis tar i betraktning lovbestemmelser utenfor amerikansk lovverk, når man skal utforske en konflikt mellom parter. Dette for å forstå partenes standpunkt. F.eks. er det vanlig å se på rettspraksis i hjemlandet til et ikke-amerikansk selskap, dersom det oppstår konflikt mellom dette og et amerikansk selskap; og er begge selskapene ikke-amerikanske, men virksomme i USA, kan man også vurdere rettspraksis i begge disse landene, selv om denne er ulik den amerikanske. Amerikansk lovverk har likevel presedens, men årsaken til at man gjør dette, er for å få en så god oppfatning som mulig av elementene som inngår i årsaksbildet bak en konflikt.
Ditto når det gjelder religiøs bakgrunn og håndhevelse av tradisjoner i forbindelse med dette. Det skyldes, ironisk nok, at USA var destinasjon for mange som var utsatt for religiøs forfølgelse i sine hjemland, og at USA ble et kaleidoskop av ulike religiøse retninger og fortolkninger. Siden det er religionsfrihet i USA ble det praksis for å ta høyde for religiøse særskikker i rettssaker, igjen for å forstå årsaksbildet bedre.
Pga religionsfriheten, betyr dette at man også ser på ikke-kristen religionspraksis. Dette har nå falt enkelte tungt for brystet -- etter at de skjønte at dette var etablert praksis. Og derfor har man nå søkt å forby at man skal gjøre slike betraktninger, ved rettsvurderinger.
Så - ingen har forsøkt å innføre Sharia i Alabama, såfremt vedkommende ikke hadde et sterkt ønske om å begå assistert selvmord.
Men Alabama har innført en lov som medfører at det er amerikansk lov, og ikke utenlandske lover (eller annen rettsskikk) som skal gjelde i amerikanske rettssaler. Det er de ikke alene om, flere delstater har gjort det samme.
Alabama Is the Latest State to Try to Ban Foreign Law in Courts
Amos Toh, a co-author of a Brennan Center for Justice report that cast such bans as anti-Muslim and “thinly concealed attempts” to demoralize the faith, said the Muslim community remains the target in these wider, foreign law bans.
“The motivation underlying the passage of the legislation is very much a fundamental misunderstanding about Islam and a belief in stereotypes,” he said.
But Allen said the goal of the amendment is to “take every measure” to ensure that the United States and State Constitutions come first in the interpretation of our laws.
“This is not an effort to demonize any religion,” he responded in an email, “but rather an effort to ensure that the laws on which our great country was founded are never eroded.”
Six states have similar foreign law bans, most recently North Carolina’s last year. Missouri also passed a measure banning foreign law last year but Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed the bill because of its potential impact on international adoptions. Oklahoma's voters approved a ban, which explicitly referred to Sharia law, in 2010. But this year it was struck down by a federal appeals court for being discriminatory. Arizona, South Dakota, Kansas, Louisiana and Tennessee all have passed measures banning implementation of foreign or religious laws. Still, the issue has permeated across the country: all but 16 states have considered such a measure in the past five years.
Dette var også tema før valget i 2012, i USA, og dengang skrev Amy Sullivan ganske klokt om hvor lett det er å få folk til å tro på tøys og tull, når de vil tro på tøys og tull.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-06-12-Sharia-law-in-the-USA_n.htm
So if sharia is consulted only in certain cases and only at the discretion of the court, why has it become such a high priority for states and GOP candidates? One answer is that sharia opponents believe they need to act not to prevent the way Islamic law is currently used in the U.S. but to prevent a coming takeover by Muslim extremists. The sponsor of an Oklahoma measure banning sharia approved by voters last fall described it as "a pre-emptive strike." Others, like the conservative Center for Security Policy, assert that all Muslims are bound to work to establish an Islamic state in the U.S.
But if that was true — and the very allegation labels every Muslim in America a national security threat — the creeping Islamic theocracy movement is creeping very slowly. Muslims first moved to the Detroit suburb of Dearborn, for example, nearly a century ago to work in Henry Ford's factories. For most of the past 100 years, Dearborn has been home to the largest community of Arabs in the U.S. And yet after five or six generations, Dearborn's Muslims have not sought to see the city run in accordance with sharia. Bars and the occasional strip clubs dot the town's avenues, and a pork sausage factory is located next to the city's first mosque.
Maybe Dearborn's Muslims are just running a very drawn-out head fake on the country. It's hard to avoid the more likely conclusion, however, that politicians who cry "Sharia!" are engaging in one of the oldest and least-proud political traditions — xenophobic demagoguery. One of the easiest ways to spot its use is when politicians carelessly throw around a word simply because it scares some voters.
Take Gerald Allen, the Alabama state senator who was moved by the danger posed by sharia to sponsor a bill banning it — but who, when asked for a definition, could not say what sharia was. "I don't have my file in front of me," he told reporters. "I wish I could answer you better." In Tennessee, lawmakers sought to make following sharia a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison — until they learned that their effort would essentially make it illegal to be Muslim in their state.
