Not really.
When someone drums up a non-issue for demagoguery, then the hidden agenda needs to be examined.
If it is such a non-issue, then such vehement objections to it hint at a hidden agenda that needs to be exposed.
The agenda here is to stir up anti-Muslim hysteria over a non-issue by playing into people's fears of an Islamic takeover. Any one with the most basic knowledge of US law would know that there is no chance of Muslims forcing Sharia law onto non-Muslims in the US. Heck, they can't even force it into Muslims who reject it.
The reality is that such religious family law is already in place in many localities for Muslims, Jews and Christians who comply with it voluntarily. No one has tried to force non-believers into their laws.
Sure there is. The issue is not forcing non-Muslims under Shariah laws, but that there is an opening to create a
DUAL LEGAL SYSTEMS where both have equal enforcement responsibilities by the state.
BBC NEWS | Programmes | This World | Inside a Sharia Court
Some British Muslims want Sharia law implemented in the UK. Sharia law is already practised informally in parts of Britain to resolve Islamic divorce, inheritance and family disputes. Now some Muslims want their laws to work alongside the existing legal system.
Legal systems | LII / Legal Information Institute
A number of other countries have 'dual' systems in which religious rules govern, and religious courts adjudicate on, such matters as marriage, divorce, family relationships and possibly family property, while a secular system with state courts covers the wider fields of public and commercial law. This was the position in England until the 1850s, and is the case today in Israel, India, and Pakistan, while in some African countries these more private areas are ruled by local ethnic and religious custom. In these dual jurisdictions, the proportion of human activity governed by one or the other system may well depend on the stage of economic and political development of the country in question. This leads to a difficult area of enquiry, of which all that can be said in this context is that in some countries a sophisticated secular system may well exist, but only on paper.
Law of Malaysia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The constitution of Malaysia also provides for a unique dual justice systemthe secular laws (criminal and civil) and sharia laws.
Now answer the question: Does Pakistan have a dual legal system or not?
Let us speculate that the US have this dual legal systems. Under secular laws, women have 10 rights while under Shariah laws, women have 5 rights. The US Federal Government is therefore obligated to enforce two distinct and obviously unequal legal systems where under one system, a woman can be abused and in some circumstance the government may be compelled to be party to such abuse.
If we allow judges and arbiters of legal contracts the latitude to include religious laws into their decision making processes, no matter how minor the dispute, the slippery slope argument comes into play.
YOU, as a Muslim man, may have no problems with the woman the legally inferior, but as a secular man -- I do.
I want the US Constitution to be supreme. All laws and judgments must be based upon it. It does not matter if I am subjected to Shariah laws or not. The idea that there is a parallel legal system inside the US disgusts me.
I wonder who is the one with the hidden agenda here...
Some Jewish and Christian communities in the West do follow ancient laws (Halakha and canon law, respectively).
But if a dispute is placed before the legal system outside those religious laws, the country's legal system takes supremacy. The conservative Jew or Christian cannot expect the state to enforce religious laws, unlike what British Muslims are wanting the British government to do.
