“This effort is not solving a problem, but it is simply based on an out-of-state model in policy that is a direct reaction to Islamophobia and it is an underhanded effort to spread an alarmist message about Islam in order to keep Muslims in the United States on the margins,” Rachel Carroll Rivas, co-director of the Montana Human Rights Network.
In reality, no one is trying to “spread an alarmist message about Islam.” No one cares about individual Muslim religious practice or wants to restrict it. The purpose of anti-Sharia laws is not to stop Muslims from getting married in Islamic religious ceremonies or to restrict their religious practice in other ways, but to stop the political and supremacist aspects of Islam that infringe upon the rights and freedoms of non-Muslims, denying the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. This is the case that must be made, but it still hasn’t been.
“‘Anti-Sharia Law’ Bill Passes In Montana House Judiciary,” by Jason Le Miere, International Business Times, March 14, 2017:
A bill to ban foreign laws in Montana courts that many have described as an anti-Sharia law bill, passed the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Monday. Senate Bill 97, which passed along party lines by an 11-8 vote, will now move to the House floor for debate.
Although the bill does not specifically mention Sharia law, the term was used by both those supporting and opposing it during hearings, Montana Public Radio reported. Opponents claimed that the law would further anti-Muslim sentiment, while proponents argued that Sharia law could be used as a defense to abuse women or marry minors.
Republican Representative Seth Berglee conceded that he was not aware of any such instances in Montana but said that he had been informed of examples in other states where people attempted to get the court to enforce foreign laws.
“It might not be a problem in Montana but we make prospective laws all the time,” Burgle said. “So I think this is a good bill.”
Supporters of such bills often point to a New Jersey case from 2009 when a family court judge ruled that a woman could not be granted a restraining order against her husband who had sexually assaulted her, based on Sharia law. However, the verdict was later overturned.
Similar foreign or Sharia law bills have been introduced in a number of states in recent years, [sic]
The American Civil Liberties Union has argued that such laws are unconstitutional….
“This effort is not solving a problem, but it is simply based on an out-of-state model in policy that is a direct reaction to Islamophobia and it is an underhanded effort to spread an alarmist message about Islam in order to keep Muslims in the United States on the margins,” Rachel Carroll Rivas, co-director of the Montana Human Rights Network, said. “This is simply a policy rooted in xenophobia that is unfounded and unfair.”