Study debunks prominent report on U.S. courts enforcing Sharia

From Fierce Government:

Study debunks prominent report on U.S. courts enforcing Sharia

By Zach Rausnitz

Comment |  Forward | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn

U.S. courts hardly ever recognized Islamic elements of contracts or overseas orders in a set of cases used as a basis for the notion that U.S. courts enforce Sharia law, says a Jan. 30 report (.pdf) from the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. Dr. Julie Macfarlane, an ISPU Fellow, examined the 20 cases which the Center for Security Policy deemed Sharia "highly relevant" in the courts' decisions as part CSP's report that has inspired a national campaign against using Sharia law in U.S. courts. Macfarlane calls the campaign part of a "moral panic." Nine of the 20 cases involved consideration of an order that an overseas court made. Of those nine, U.S. courts accepted orders made in two child custody cases and one divorce settlement. In the other six, the judges substituted American law and overrode the order, or they expressed concern about the incompatibility of the decision-making process with American values and remanded the case for further consideration, Macfarlane writes. Eight of the cases entailed contracts that referred to Islamic law implicitly or explicitly. In four of those, the courts refused to enforce the contract. In the other four, the courts upheld the contracts after they found sufficient clarity and intention. Courts operate on a laissez-faire principle that allows adults to agree to whatever they choose unless the agreement breaks the law, the report says. In two of the remaining cases, which pertained to female plaintiffs--one with a personal injury claim and one in an inheritance dispute--U.S. courts pre-empted the overseas orders out of concern for the plaintiffs' treatment, the report says. The final case was the one in which a New Jersey trial court judge refused to issue a restraining order for a violent husband who believed he had the right to non-consensual sex with his wife--but the order was reversed on appeal, though the report notes that this conclusion received far less attention than the original ruling. Macfarlane concludes that when cases involve Islamic law, courts actually appear less likely to enforce an earlier order or contract, because judges tend to lack sufficient knowledge of Islamic law or want to be sensitive to the surrounding political issues. For the study, 212 imams, social workers, therapists, lawyers and divorced men and women gave interviews. The report says that none of the American Muslims interviewed expected American courts to enforce Sharia. For more: - download the report (.pdf)