At Least He Didn’t Use Conservapedia
So, you’re a state senator in the deep South. You love freedom, which is why you’re a Republican. You know that Shariah (aka Shari’ah) is the enemy of freedom. You also know that, although Shariah currently plays no role in the law of your state, it will eventually supplant the Constitution (sometime in the next four decades, you estimate) unless you stop it. So you decide to sponsor a bill that would prohibit judges from relying on Shariah (and that icky freedom-hating international law) when making legal decisions. There’s only one problem — how should you define Shariah? After all, Muslim jurists have been struggling over a definition for centuries. Then it hits you: the answer is obvious. There is only one source that you can truly trust.
Allen is the sole sponsor of SB 62, a bill that would ban Alabama courts from using Shariah law or international law in making legal decisions.
The bill defines Shariah as “a form of religious law derived from two primary sources of Islamic law: The divine revelations set forth in the Qur’an and the example set by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad.”
That definition is the same, almost word for word, as wording in the Wikipedia entry on Shariah law as it appeared Thursday. Allen said the wording was drafted by Legislative staff. A source on the staff at the Legislature confirmed that the definition was in fact pulled from Wikipedia.
Allen could not readily define Shariah in an interview Thursday. “I don’t have my file in front of me,” he said. “I wish I could answer you better.”