Sharia law ban heads to Senate

Posted May 16, 2013


— A proposal to ban the recognition of Islamic Sharia law in North Carolina courts is headed for the Senate after winning final House approval Thursday.

Rep. Rick Glazier, D-Cumberland, said House Bill 695 is unnecessary, would conflict with constitutional due process rights and would damage North Carolina's image in the eyes of the international business community.

Bill sponsor Rep. Chris Whitmire, R-Transylvania, disagreed.

"Take it as fact that this is a very, very present threat that must be dealt with," Whitmire said. "We are making sure that the most fundamental basis on which we exist is protected." 

Rep. John Blust, R-Guilford, disagreed with arguments that the state and federal constitution already protect citizens against foreign law.

"I’ve always wanted to depend on our own constitution, but we have seen that document put in, frankly, grave danger," Blust said. 

"In the United States, there is the Sharia law," he said. "It is fundamentally at odds with U.S. jurisprudence. The two systems cannot be reconciled. Individual rights are not recognized." 

Blust said the goal of proponents of Sharia law is to infiltrate other cultures. He said Democrats should be aware of the threat.

"Some of the groups of people that are championed on the progressive side are absolutely trod upon under Sharia," he warned. "For example, homosexuals are stoned. I don't want to see that creeping in here."

Rep. Larry Pittman, R-Cabarrus, agreed, likening the threat of Sharia law to Pearl Harbor. That comparison is also frequently used by anti-Islamic activist Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy.

The measure passed by a 70-41 vote.

Corey Saylor with the Council on American-Islamic Relations called the proposal "anti-Islamic."

"Anyone who believes foreign law can replace the Constitution is misguided," he said. "The Supremacy Clause ensures that the Constitution will always remain our nation’s law. American Muslims like it that way, as it ensures every individual’s right to worship or not as they see fit."

"That is why CAIR’s lawsuit against an anti-Islam bill in Oklahoma argues First Amendment and Supremacy Clause issues," Saylor said in a statement. "Four federal judges have ruled in our favor so far, so we are confident we are upholding the Constitution.

"Frankly, supporters of anti-Islam legislation, such as HB 695, are undermining its protections," he added. 


This blog post is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • megathrasher May 18, 2013

    Sharia influence would impact judicial interpretation of laws already on the books, not any new laws that would be written. Our current legal system is derived from English "common law" which is based on legal precedence. A court might use the ruling of another court in a similar case to base its decision. Only higher court may overturn a lower court's decision based on a variety of factors (misconduct, new evidence). Common law is used in 49 out of 50 states and is a very organic, lesson-based system for decision making.
    Sharia throws out rationality in favor of "What Would Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) Do?" It is derived from the Quran and the Hadith (depending on the country) and is very inflexible. It is not the SOURCE of Sharia that is the problem (no doubt, a rigid system based solely on the KJV Bible would be equally disastrous); it is the INFLEXIBILITY of Sharia. There is no overturning what Prophet Muhammad said; stone people for adultery and chop off their hands for stealing.

  • Liveandlearn May 17, 2013

    I am sure that there are many sides to this story; however, David Patrick Boyd who was convicted of his terrorist ties here in North Carolina received a "mortgage type co-ownership" position with Guidance Residential to purchase his house in Willow Springs. This company serves Muslim people to adhere to their laws of Sharia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidance_Residential He had financial problems and filed bankruptcy and would not have qualified under traditional US banking laws. The Internal Revenue Service has skirted around how these "arrangements" are treated when taxes are filed.

  • samr May 17, 2013

    This is nothing more than a voter promise bill -- as in "I promise if elected that I will propose a bill to ban sharia law in NC" -- and does nothing to address the problems our state faces.

  • JustAwful May 17, 2013

    I wonder how this bill will help create jobs.

  • FlagWavingFascistCrank May 16, 2013

    How verily thou hast nailed it, Bendal1....and AMEN.

  • Bendal1 May 16, 2013

    This is nothing more than a dogwhistle for the Republicans' low information voting base. The First Amendment bans any law based on religion, ANY religion, so the Republicans are basically wasting taxpayer dollars flr every minute they spend on this unnecessary, useless bill. It's like them passing a bill banning the sun from rising in the west.

  • ncfarmer321 May 16, 2013

    What a complete and utter waste of time ..this is the same group of people who wanted an amendment to the State constitution to add a State religion ..really what are the so afraid of?

  • cookie998 May 16, 2013

    a 'present threat' ???
    this is absolutely ridiculous.
    i keep thinking this legislature can't possibly get any worse.
    i was wrong. this is so completely boneheaded, i don't know whether to laugh or cry.

  • jgilchr May 16, 2013

    Can they also ban Christo-fascist laws?

  • rushbot May 16, 2013

    unbelievable..what a waste of time and money and oxygen by the gop led ncga.. .. ..this is even less necessary than their racist voter id law.. .. ..seriously..if you really believe that nc is going to be overrun by moslem zealots .. .. ..wow...just wow...