A study released Friday by the conservative Center for Security Policy warns that issues involving Islamic Sharia law have popped up in legal cases across the country, including four in Florida trial and appellate courts. Muslims, after all, have grown to represent 0.6 percent of the U.S. population, and Sharia customs include codes for resolving disputes as well as standards for prayer and worship.
The critical 600-page report by the Center for Security Policy portrays any consideration of Sharia in Florida
courts -- including pleadings by plaintiffs or defendants -- as a threat to the U.S. Constitution. Its legal research identified four such cases in Florida from the past 33 years, so we reviewed them to understand the threat.
"With an increased presence of Sharia-adherent Muslims in the United States, and the rapid rise of political and militant Islam globally, the conflict between Shariah law and the Constitution requires a new level of debate among policymakers, media, the legal community, and most importantly, the American public," the report says.
Fortunately, no conflict has yet emerged in Florida's courts.
Our review of the Florida cases cited by the center found that in all of them, judges have upheld state and U.S. statutes, U.S. Constitutional provisions and American case and contract law. They so regardless of the religious or "foreign" nature of contracts or other issues.
In two cases, from 1978 and 1996, Florida appeals judges determined that prenuptial agreements between spouses are a binding contracts that must be honored, as long as the terms are legal. In both cases, Muslim women seeking divorces prevailed over men, protecting their share of property. Although the prenups were fashioned after Islamic custom, the judges cited precedent from U.S. cases and affirmed American contract law. In one case, a trial judge refused the Muslim husband special access to his wife's private psychiatric evaluations.
In a third case, a 2010 paternity and "partition" action, appeals judges ruled that couples can only be considered legally married in Florida if they enter official, state-sanctioned unions. A divorcing couple had been married in an Islamic ceremony, but never sanctioned it with a state marriage license. The courts ordered the husband to pay child support, but not alimony.
In the fourth case -- the ongoing Trustees vs. Islamic Education Center of Tampa Inc. -- the trial judge so far has ruled that a contract is a contract. If a contract calls for plaintiffs to first take their disputes to mediation, the parties and the courts must respect that contract, even if the contract calls for a faith-based mediator such as a priest, rabbi or imam. Case law in Florida and from the U.S. Supreme Court allows ecclesiastical law to control certain relations between members of religious organizations, including mosques.
Nevertheless, conservatives have blasted the judge, who wrote, "The court will require further testimony to determine whether the Islamic dispute resolution procedures have been followed in this matter."
To address cases such as these, the Center for Security Policy has drafted "model legislation" for the Florida Legislature and others to pass. Its proposed bill would invalidate any contract "based on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and (Florida) Constitutions."
Meanwhile, here's what Dr. Muzaffar Shaikh, an imam and spokesman for the Brevard Islamic Society, told Columnist Matt Reed in response to another center's criticism of Sharia law and Muslims in general.
No comments:
Post a Comment