ed promotes Shariah law in U(Siemens Transducer)

Lamenting that several states are "considering outlawing aspects of Shariah law," Stern writes:Under Sharia law, the clothes you wear, music you listen to, and television you watch would all be censored. Siemens TransducerBehavior in public is legally restricted and controlled. And Sharia is the ideal social system for those that preach Radical Islam. Sharia is an Arabic term referring to a legal framework to regulate public and private aspects of life based upon specific Islamic teachings. Sharia is an intolerant system that threatens the western ideals of "liberty and justice for all". Sharia views non Muslims as second class citizens, sanctions inequality between men and women, prescribes cruel and unusual punishments for crimes, and promotes a restrictive business environment that strangles the freedoms of capitalism.

Shariah law based on religious concepts dating back to the seventh century is used by countries like Iran to justify stoning of women who have been raped, or the execution of homosexuals.

But Stern argues that "Some of these efforts would curtail Muslims from settling disputes over dietary laws and marriage through religious arbitration, while others would go even further in stigmatizing Islamic life."

What Stern forgets, however, is that the United States is not a theocracy, and while individuals may choose to practice religious doctrine in matters of diet and private life, other issues like marriage and divorce are covered by civil law passed by secular legislatures and arbitrated in civil courts.

Stern compares the animosity against Shariah law to 19th century European fears of Jewish law:

The suggestion that Shariah threatens American security is disturbingly reminiscent of the accusation, in 19th century Europe,Toshiba Transducer that Jewish religious law was seditious. (They said that it did not.)

Fear that Jewish law bred disloyalty was not limited to political elites; leading European philosophers also entertained the idea. Kant argued that the particularistic nature of "Jewish legislation" made Jews "hostile to all other peoples." And Hegel contended that Jewish dietary rules and other Mosaic laws barred Jews from identifying with their fellow Prussians and called into question their ability to be civil servants.

There is, however, one glaring difference.

Jews in 19th century Europe were not bent on creating a global Jewish empire ruled by strict religious law. Constitution.

In its April 2011 issue, Townhall magazine's Kathy Jessup wrote about the influence Shariah law is already having in the United States:

A judge refuses a protection order for a woman raped by her Muslim husband, ruling the man's abuse is allowed under Shariah law.

A cartoonist is in hiding after a tongue in cheek "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" promotion earned her a fatwa death order for violating a Shariah edict banning drawing the Muslim prophet's image.

A Shariah compliant investment fund is camouflaged as a charity and funnels more than $12 million to finance Hamas suicide bombers.

Not exactly shocking in some Muslim countries where strict adherence to centuries old rules, based on Islamic teachings, shines a spotlight on stonings and beheadings.

But these occurred recently in the United States.

Now "honor killings," publicly funded accommodations for Islamic prayer and billions in Wall Street investments linked to potentially dangerous terror activities are raising political and constitutional questions in America.

Last November, 70 percent voters in Oklahoma approved a measure banning the use of Shariah law in that state's court system. The proposal read, in part:

This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.

Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.

Shall the proposal be approved?

When the director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) challenged the amendment in court, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction, ruling the amendment could be interpreted to single out Shariah law and discredit Islam, violating the First Amendment.

Stern writes that the mistrust Americans have of Muslims is "fueled by the notion that American Muslims are akin to certain extreme Muslim groups in the Middle East and in Europe," like those who brutally murdered nearly 3,000 innocent people on Sept. 11, 2001.

"Given time," Stern adds, "American Muslims, like all other religious minorities before them, will adjust their legal and theological traditions, if necessary, to accord with American values."