Texas Gov. Abbott Signs Anti-Shariah Law Bill Into Law

0 358

There is no doubt when Barack Hussein Obama was president, there was a flood of illegal aliens from other terrorist supporting countries into America, many with Islamic backgrounds. Those same illegal aliens were practicing Muslims and believed they were above the law of the land – our law, the U.S. Constitution!

Under President Obama, Sharia law was pushed in many areas to replace our Constitution. Don’t believe me? Just look at those that were in Obama’s administration, like former national security adviser and Muslim Brotherhood supporting Imam, Mohamed Elibiary.

Elibiary has said, “The United States of America an Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution.”

Sounds crazy, but that was a real statement from a former national security adviser for the United States.

Thankfully, we have a new president in the White House, who is working to return our country to the law of the land.

In addition, we have strong governors like Texas Governor Greg Abbott who recently signed into law House Bill 45, the “American Laws for American Courts,” which prohibits the state’s courts from using any foreign law in its courts, with specific reference to family courts that involved marriage or parents and children.

H/T Conservative Tribune:

In a move that’s angered Muslim groups, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has signed a bill that would ban Shariah law and other forms of foreign law from being used in Texas courts.

Texas House Bill 45 — more commonly known as the “American Laws for American Courts” bill — would require the “Texas Supreme Court to adopt rules and provide judicial instruction regarding the application of foreign laws in certain family law cases.”

It states that “litigants in actions under the Family Code involving a marriage relationship or a parent-child relationship are protected against violations of constitutional rights and public policy in the application of foreign law and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitration awards by courts of this state by a well-established body of law.”

Breaking this down, what it essentially means is that in cases that involve divorces, child custody, child support or other family disputes, foreign law — including Shariah — cannot be entered into proceedings. Before, said the bill’s author, Republican state Rep. Dan Flynn, spouses could enter into agreements that would apply foreign law to their cases.

“My colleagues and I here at the Texas Legislature want to make sure Texas judges never apply foreign law in Texas courts in violation of constitutional rights and the public policy of our state,” Flynn said, according to Breitbart.

The bill doesn’t mention any particular code by name, simply noting that foreign law is “a law, rule, or code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States.” Instead, it says that U.S. law and Texas law supersedes all law in this area.

However, the Council on American-Islamic Relations released a statement saying that HB 45 “is designed to negatively impact Muslims’ civil rights and to demonize their faith. We believe it aims to prevent Muslims from practicing their faith in areas such as Islamic marriage, divorce, funeral procedures and civil agreements.”

The issues surrounding Shariah law and foreign law in Texas first became an area of contention when a Shariah arbitration court called the Islamic Tribunal was established in the city of Dallas back in 2015, according to Breitbart.

The Islamic Tribunal notes on its website that “(s)imilar religious tribunals have existed for decades in the American Jewish and American Christian faith communities to resolve disputes, most especially within families. These religious tribunals are optional arbitration vehicles that only conduct their work when requested to do so by both parties involved in a dispute, do not attempt to impose any belief system upon any individual and work in compliance with State of Texas and US law under the United States Constitution.”

However, several things must be noted here. First, while such voluntary agreements are not strictly enforceable in a court of law, in any closed religious society — Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. — the social pressure to enter into such arbitration and opprobrium for not following its dictates aren’t necessarily trivial.

Second, the only area of practice listed on the Islamic Tribunal’s website is divorce. For reasons that I don’t think need to be explained in depth here, one specific party — the male — could almost always be expected to do better in that area of Shariah arbitration than in U.S. courts. Similar arbitration courts in the United Kingdom, which have more binding force of law, have faced reports of overt misogyny.

According to the U.K. Daily Mail, women have face situations where an abused wife was asked “Why did you marry such a person?” by a judge, and male heirs were given twice as much inheritance as female heirs.

The Texas legislation seems particularly aimed at family law, which means that other areas of institutional dispute within the faith community could likely still be resolved through such an arbitration process. Given the potential social pressures in faith communities, it’s not an appropriate venue for such laws.

HB 45 requires the Texas Supreme Court adopt its rules by January 1, 2018. The law goes into effect on September 1, making Texas the 12th state to enact ALAC. The other states are Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Washington, according to ACT for America.

It’s hard to imagine that under former President Obama, we had a national security adviser who was appointed in DHS’ Homeland Security and Advisory Counsel (HSAC). Elibiary even was elevated to “senior fellow” which gave him high security clearance and access to classified materials.

Elibiary had long been a lightening rod for controversy and a poster boy for critics who accused the Obama administration of appointing radical advisers to a range of sensitive security posts.

Elibiary came under fire in June for tweeting about the “inevitable” return of the Muslim “caliphate.” His tweets were later praised by affiliates of the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) and potentially used to recruit extremist followers.

Elibiary also had maintained that America was “an Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution” and argued that the Muslim Brotherhood posed no threat to the United States.

Yeah, right. And how many terrorist attacks were there on American soil since 2009? ….oh, that’s right….16! Nice work Obama!

Thank goodness we have a new president in office who supports the Constitution, FIRST and foremost.

Let’s hope for the sake of our future generations in America, more states continue to adopt similar laws.  However, the real solution to the problem is returning the United States back to ‘One Nation Under God’.

God Bless the State of Texas!

You might also like

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.