Legislating Islamophobia: The factors for the existence of anti-sharia laws in the United States
| Published date | 01 July 2022 |
| Date | 01 July 2022 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0952076720977610 |
| Author | Daniel Hummel |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
2022, Vol. 37(3) 317 –341
Article
Legislating Islamophobia:
The factors for the
existence of anti-sharia
laws in the United
States
Daniel Hummel
Department of Nonprofit Management, Empowerment and
Diversity Studies, Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania,
Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania USA
Abstract
In 2010 a number of states began introducing a law that prohibited the application of
sharia in U.S. courtrooms. Sharia, translated as the ‘clear path’, is essentially the law of
Islam. These laws are an outgrowth of the angst and prejudice toward Muslim
Americans known as Islamophobia. This study attempts to understand these laws,
their origin and the population, legislative and political/cultural factors most closely
related to their introduction and existence. This is a very salient topic given the
targeting of Islam by some politicians most prominently in the 2016 presidential elec-
tion. Their introduction and passage in some states have alienated the small, but grow-
ing population of Muslims. It was found in this study that religious salience, tradition-
alism and the size of the presence of anti-Muslim groups predicted the existence of an
anti-sharia law, while Democratic dominance predicted no law. These results indicate
that Islam is part of the ‘culture war’ in the United States.
Keywords
culture war, Islam, Islamophobia, religious freedom, sharia, state policy
Corresponding author:
Daniel Hummel, Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania, 1 Morrow Way, 200B Spotts World Cultures
Building, Slippery Rock, PA 16057, USA.
Email: daniel.hummel@sru.edu
Public Policy and Administration
!The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0952076720977610
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppa
318 Public Policy and Administration 37(3)
Introduction
In 2010 a number of states began introducing a law that prohibited the application
of sharia in U.S. courtrooms. The word ‘sharia’ comes from the Qur’an, the
Islamic holy book. The word can be translated as the ‘clear path’. It is essentially
the law of Islam like the halakhah is for Judaism or the canon law for Catholics.
For a practicing Muslim, one cannot have Islam without sharia (Uddin, 2019).
The laws have been challenged in court particularly in Awad v. Ziriax (2012)
which was related to a constitutional amendment in Oklahoma that sought to ban
sharia. Based on established standards through various court cases that encompass
interpretations of the Establishment Clause and the Supremacy Clause these laws
were considered unconstitutional. Since then the language of these laws has been
altered to avoid specific references to sharia; however, the intent of these laws is
still the same and continue to raise Supremacy Clause issues (Sheeder, 2013).
The unconstitutionality of these laws was also based on the court’s inability to
establish the actual implementation of sharia in the United States or the harmful
effects on the state from individual adoption of sharia in civil court cases involving
marriage, divorce and child custody. Religious law has been used in these courts in
the United States for some time by various religious communities. Quite the con-
trary, as explained by Pedrioli (2012) these, “laws discriminate against U.S.
Muslims out of whose religious tradition Sharia comes, and fail to offer an expla-
nation for such discrimination, instead appealing to public ignorance of Islam and
fear of terrorism (p. 69).” In addition, Prasatik (2013) observed that, “laboring
under the guise of protecting the U.S. Constitution and preventing future terrorist
attacks, the singling-out of Islam has been described as plain bigotry (p. 466).”
These laws have an origin point with David Yerushalmi who drafted the legis-
lation in 2009. The legislation has been promoted by Frank Gaffney of the Center
for Security Policy and the American Public Policy Alliance. In addition, Brigitte
Gabriel and her organization ACT! For America has promoted the law. Both
Yerushalmi and Gabriel have been identified as part of the ‘anti-Muslim inner
circle’ in a 2011 Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) report (Steinback, 2011).
David Yerushalmi is an Arizona attorney who serves as a general counsel for
anti-Muslim think tanks and other organizations. He also is a co-founder of the
American Freedom Law Center and a founder of the Society of Americans for
National Existence (SANE). He believes that Muslims are holy warriors who are
focused on killing non-Muslims. Over the years his focus has been directed at the
halting of the supposed spread of sharia with his model legislation known as
American Law for American Courts (ALAC). He has argued that sharia is a
totalitarian ideology that undermines the Constitution. His model legislation ini-
tially proposed that the observance of sharia was an act of sedition which is a
felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison. He included that any Muslim observ-
ing it would be deported or barred entry to the United States. This version of the
law has not survived today. While a softer version of the law proliferates, he
2Public Policy and Administration 0(0)
To continue reading
Request your trial