The Other Muslim Bans

Will Smiley
{"title":"The Other Muslim Bans","authors":"Will Smiley","doi":"10.53484/JIL.V1.SMILEY","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article addresses and critiques the case for state-level legislative bans on courts citing “Islamic law” or the law of Muslim-majority countries. In particular, the Article reviews the most substantive evidence adduced by the bans’ supporters, in the form of a set of state court cases published by the Center for Security Policy (CSP). Very few of these cases, in fact, show courts actually applying Islamic or foreign law, and in none of these cases would the various forms of proposed legislation have been likely to alter the result. Thus even this report does not suggest a need for the state laws purporting to ban sharīʿa. The Article thus argues that even if these bans are not unconstitutionally discriminatory in their effect, they are ineffective at achieving their claimed purpose. \nThis Article was originally published as an Occasional Paper in the Harvard Papers in Islamic Law series in 2018.","PeriodicalId":340573,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Islamic Law","volume":"334 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Islamic Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53484/JIL.V1.SMILEY","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This Article addresses and critiques the case for state-level legislative bans on courts citing “Islamic law” or the law of Muslim-majority countries. In particular, the Article reviews the most substantive evidence adduced by the bans’ supporters, in the form of a set of state court cases published by the Center for Security Policy (CSP). Very few of these cases, in fact, show courts actually applying Islamic or foreign law, and in none of these cases would the various forms of proposed legislation have been likely to alter the result. Thus even this report does not suggest a need for the state laws purporting to ban sharīʿa. The Article thus argues that even if these bans are not unconstitutionally discriminatory in their effect, they are ineffective at achieving their claimed purpose. This Article was originally published as an Occasional Paper in the Harvard Papers in Islamic Law series in 2018.
穆斯林的其他禁令
本文讨论并批评了州一级立法禁止法院引用“伊斯兰法”或穆斯林占多数的国家的法律的情况。文章特别回顾了禁令支持者引用的最具实质性的证据,这些证据是以安全政策中心(CSP)公布的一系列州法院案例的形式出现的。事实上,这些案件中很少有法院实际适用伊斯兰法或外国法,在这些案件中,各种形式的拟议立法都不太可能改变结果。因此,即使是这份报告也不认为有必要制定旨在禁止沙里亚的国家法律。因此,该条认为,即使这些禁令在效果上不是违反宪法的歧视,它们在实现其声称的目的方面也是无效的。本文最初发表于2018年《哈佛伊斯兰法论文》系列的一篇临时论文。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信