by Doctor Science
Last week, the voters of Oklahoma overwhelmingly approved a state Constitutional amendment to prohibit judges from considering international or Shariah law. As Marcia Hamilton said on Findlaw (I believe sarcastically), this
seems to be Oklahomans’ reaction to the demonic Taliban and al-Qaeda forces that are pledged to end our way of life and America itself [ominous music].
As has become customary, much of the rhetoric about “Shariah Law”[1] focuses on the legal status and treatment of women. In this case, one of the standard talking points is that “Shariah Law” mandates unjust wills, because it prescribes that, in dividing an estate each son should inherit twice as much as each daughter. The Muslim who has filed the initial lawsuit against the amendment is doing so on the basis that his will states “that his possessions be divided ‘in accordance with the guidance contained in the prophetic teachings’ of Islam” — which pretty much makes the point for his opponents.
I’m not certain if there is anything “especially nefarious” about the shariah laws when compared to other religious laws created during the middle ages, and that’s when most of them seem to have been created. They all tend to give women fewer rights than men, though.
I’m more knowledgeable about Islam than Echidne, and I’ll go further: before the Enlightenment, Islamic inheritance law, in particular, was in many ways *more* just and equitable than that current in Europe, and some Islamic legal creations have become part of the structure of Western law.