An anti-sharia activist sees a double standard within the American Bar Association (ABA), as the consideration of Muslim law stirs controversy among the legal group.
Proposals before state legislatures that would bar judges from implementing sharia law in their court decisions have led the ABA’s executive council to consider a policy statement on the matter. But the effort to actively oppose states that ban sharia law has led several of the association’s 400,000 members to distance themselves from the work of the executive council.
Mat Staver, who heads Liberty Counsel and serves as dean of Liberty University’s Law School, explains that the executives have issued a statement “that essentially says that they have a task force, and…the goal of the task force [is] to have a recommendation against such legislation.” The council also has “an informal set of talking points that local opponents of these initiatives could actually use.”
So the ABA is distancing itself from the battle against bills that are currently before 14 state legislatures. In Staver’s opinion, the U.S. does not need another legal system to add to the nation’s local, state and federal laws, or the Constitution.
“We don’t need to consider sharia law. Certainly, I think it would be completely inappropriate to do so,” he argues. “Sharia law has no place in our judicial system and should have no place here in a judge’s determination.”
And the Liberty Counsel founder suggests that a U.S. judge’s use of sharia law in a domestic court case may be what ultimately prompted the 14 states to introduce bills to halt the Muslim law’s implementation.