ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – A heated debate preceded a vote yesterday by the Missouri House in favor of a bill that would ban Sharia law in the state.

The bill – H.B. 708 – would limit the use of foreign law in Missouri courts.

“Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision of this state shall be void and unenforceable if such court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part 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 constitutions of this state and the United States,” the bill reads. H.B. 708 can be read in its entirety here.

H.B. 708’s sponsor, Eastern Missouri Republican Paul Curtman, said the bill is necessary to guarantee the constitutional rights of Missourians. But others, including St. Louis Democratic representative Jamilah Nasheed, call the bill a facetious and hollow waste of time and money.

“This bill will go to court and you are wasting your ink on this paper. Because this will not be upheld in court,” Nasheed said Tuesday. “You’re wasting your time gentleman. You’re wasting your time in this body.”

Nasheed called on Curtman to provide a list of cases in which international law had been used in American courts but Curtman was unable to provide an example of such a case.

St. Louis County Democrat Susan Carlson also cited the rights of Missourians, saying the bill would interfere with companies engaged in business overseas and their right to enter into contracts as they see fit.

“It’s going to make our companies spend more money and more time and not get the results that they bargained for,” Carlson said.

Opponents of the controversial bill cite Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Its second paragraph reads as follows: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The bill’s passage comes less than a week after more than 100 people flocked to the Missouri Capitol for a “Muslim Day” rally in an attempt to display the patriotic side of the state’s Muslim population. Participants recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag, clapped for the U.S. Constitution and responded “yes” in unison when event leaders asked if they love other Americans.

As previously reported by KMOX, Missouri is one of at least 13 states where anti-Sharia legislation is under consideration or has already been made law.  But Jim Hacking with the St. Louis office of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) doesn’t see the need.

“The first amendment would already prohibit any use of Sharia law or imposition of Sharia law on any citizen of the United States and Missouri,” Hacking said last week.

Paranoia over the use of Sharia law in U.S. courts was heightened last month when a Florida judge ruled that a dispute between Muslim parties could proceed under the ecclesiastical law.

The bill will face a final vote in the Missouri House before moving on to the Senate.

Copyright KMOX News

Comments (11)
  1. David Burford says:

    It’s time for new Americans to simply assimilate and help enrich The United States of America, the greatest country on the planet.

    1. Abdul Aziz says:

      Suclaws as this anti Sharia law do not help in the integration of new Americans. In fact there is no need for this law. The US constitution does not permit the applicability of a Shariah law or any law other than US Constitution. This law would simply tell Muslim Missurions you are different and not one of us. Some political parties could benefit but not the country. Even Islamic teachings require that Muslims follow the law of the land. Missurions should careful look at the those who are trying to garner political influence at the cost of minorities. I as a Muslim do not care for any law other the US law, the law of the land whom I love so dearly.

      1. Erle says:

        Missourian, I believe, is the correct spelling.

  2. Hamada says:

    ‘The first amendment would prohibit any use of Sharia law/or any other outside law or imposition of Sharia law on any citizen of the United States.

  3. Truth says:

    1. A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

  4. Kahn says:

    When would the state of Missouri and others will pass the law against Ant-Jewish and Anti-Christians Bible laws?

  5. Marcel Sarfati says:

    Under the Sharia law any man accused of beating his wife can just walk away since under the Sharia law it is not considered a crime. It would be under to the rest of the women who seek this protection that simply evaporates under the Sharia law. Thank God for this Law and not a day too soon.

  6. Marcel says:

    I don’t see any “true Americans” fighting this bill of rights. Under the Sharia law the Constitution of America governing the United States of America would be deemed a crime. Anyone using the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be deemed a criminal and sentenced to death. Perhaps we should apologize to the entire Muslim world and drive a sword through our heart and pray that they will forgive us for being different than them. They may find some sympathy after “We the People” kill ourselves in the name of the Sharia law and Islam and build some mosques where we would be buried.

  7. LindaML says:

    Where is the evidence this is a problem in Missouri? And what is the impact on issues such as foreign adoptions? And isn’t US law based on English common law? Might this void our entire legal system? I sure wish our legislators would do something about real issues instead of spending their energy on these wedge issues that pander. How does this help our economy?

  8. Vinicius says:

    Your contention, as epexessrd in many postings, is that these and other unsavory doctrines which are indeed there are an obligatory and binding guide for practical action, which each and every Muslim must follow; and that, therefore, there cannot be such a thing as a moderate Muslim, or a Muslim committed to democracy, or a Muslim willing to live in peace with non-Muslims on terms of equality. Is the above a fair summary of your position? If not, say where did I get you wrong, and I will correct it accordingly. Now, my contention is that:a)Also Bin Laden believes (of course) in the above doctrines of Islam; b) Also Bin Laden believes that these doctrines establish the true nature of Islam as it has repeatedly demonstrated throughout nearly the entirety of its existencec) Also Bin Laden believes that, therefore, there cannot be such a thing as a moderate Muslim, or a Muslim committed to democracy, or a Muslim willing to live in peace with non-Muslims on terms of equality. d) Therefore, you, Zenster (and others in the West who broadly share your views) have the same basic view of the essential nature of Islam as does Bin Laden (and other Muslims who share his views), and that your only essential difference (quite important, of course) is about whether this is Good or Bad. Did I now, somewhere in this chain of reasoning, make a false move and attribute to you something which is not your opinion? If I did, please point it out and I will take it back immediately. Or did I attribute to Bin Laden something which is not his opinion? Then, since he is not participating in this discussion, we can argue whether or not such is his opinion. My own opinion which I already stated at length, but will sum it up again, is that the above view of the essential nature of Islam is not true; that these and other unsavory doctrines represent one aspect of Islam but not the only one; that such doctrines are not in practice an obligatory and binding guide for practical action which each and every Muslim must follow, but only on the specific Muslims who want to follow them; that a great many Muslims who don’t want to be obliged by such doctrines to actions which they don’t want to take find a great many many ingenious and creative ways way to wriggle out of being in practice obliged to be guided by such doctrines; that it is in the supreme vital interest of Westerners in general (and Israelis like me in particular) to encourage Muslims who embark on such a wriggling out; and that it an extremely stupid and harmful thing to treat such Muslims with contempt and say that they are “not real Muslims” or “Muslims in name only”. Let me just make one more point: a similar identity of views between staunch foes existed also during the years of the Cold War. There, too, staunch Communists and staunch Anti-Communists shared the view that the regime in the Soviet Union and its satellites was the one and only “real-existing Socialism” and that there could not be such a thing as a Democratic Socialism, and were only divided on whether this was Good or Bad. In my view, this similarity is not accidental the West/Muslim World confrontation is the replacement found by people in the West who sorely missed the Cold War and its exhilarating feeling of unity against a Satanic foe.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

More From CBS St. Louis

Download The App

Listen Live