ThinkProgress Logo

Security

TN Bill Calls Two Or More Observant Muslims A ‘Sharia Organization’

After initial objections, lawmakers in Tennessee are moving a new version (pdf) of the most expansive anti-Sharia bill yet. The legislation has already been passed by committees in each chamber. The bill’s house sponsor has even cited defense against possible retaliation terror attacks for Osama bin Laden’s death to justify its breadth.

Tennessee is one of more than fifteen states trying to push laws banning Sharia — referring to the legal code of Islam. The bill says Sharia is “inextricably linked” to its “war doctrine known as jihad.”

The February version of the Tennessee bill was spiked for specific references to a particular religion, but caveats in the new incarnation make clear that only Islamic practices are in the cross-hairs. The bill says it:

neither targets, nor incidentally prohibits or inhibits, the peaceful practice of any religion, and in particular, the practice of Islam by its adherents. Rather, this part criminalizes only the knowing provision of material support or resources…to designated sharia organizations…or to known sharia-jihad organizations with the intent of furthering their criminal behavior.

So abiding privately by Sharia (ie, being an observant Muslim) is fine. But when a Muslim starts practicing Islam with partners or in a group, they are forming a “Sharia organization”:

“Sharia organization” means any two (2) or more persons conspiring to support of acting in convert in support of, Sharia or in furtherance of the imposition of sharia…

That means, in Tennessee, a Muslim could not form a non-profit that operated a mosque, a religious charity, or any other organization that goes beyond practicing religion in solitude.

Furthermore, the standard for demonstrating adherence to Sharia is absurdly broad. The bill says subscribing to “Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Ja’afariya, or Salafi, as those terms are used by sharia adherents, is prima facie sharia without any further evidentiary showing.” Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i,and  Hanbali are the only schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence. So following Sunni religious rules in concert with anyone else would be illegal.

The new version of the Tennessee bill maintains the minimum 15-year sentence for knowingly providing “material support or resources to a designated sharia organization.” However, if the support causes a death, the sentence becomes life imprisonment.

The Tennessee bill’s key sponsor on the Senate side, Sen. Bill Ketron (R), who’s mulling a run for Congress, is an eccentric lawmaker, having proposed that the state look into creating its own currency in case the Fed collapses. More than a sixth of the bills he’s sponsored in the current session deal with deregulating alcoholic beverages (which incidentally are prohibited by Sharia).

The sponsor of the bill in the House, Rep. Judd Matheny (R)  has sought to promote the bill using potential retaliatory attacks for the killing of Osama bin Laden. “When developed it took into account several contingencies such as this,” he said.

Pawlenty: Let’s Pull A Bin Laden On Qaddafi

The past week and a half has been tough for right-wing critics of President Obama’s foreign policy. Aside from the fact that the President’s decision to get Osama bin Laden pretty much put an end to the absurd neocon mockery of “leading from behind,” when it comes to killing the world’s most wanted terrorist leader, there’s really not much substantively one can get worked up over.

So how does a neocon criticize Obama now? There’s been some torture promotion and grumbling about the White House’s decision to not release dead bin Laden photos. But a pattern appears to be emerging on the right: chatter among the neocons that getting bin Laden means that this is perhaps time for the U.S. to go out guns blazing in the Middle East. Enter Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer last night on Fox News:

KRISTOL: I really hope the Obama administration sort of takes advantage of the moment and takes advantage of the momentum and really goes strong against our enemies. We could have a good few months in the Middle East despite places like Pakistan not being solved overnight. [...]

KRAUTHAMMER: [Obama] can make an argument and I think he will that this success shows how we’re winning and we can reduce our foot print. It’s a very stark choice — use it to accelerate and to increase the pressure on the enemies, our enemies.

Watch:

So Kristol and Krauthammer suggest that killing bin Laden presents a great opportunity for the U.S. to project its military might in the region. But potential GOP presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty took this line of thinking a bit further last weekend. Seeming to have the bin Laden raid on the mind, Pawlenty attacked Obama for not doing the same thing with Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi:

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is exploring a run for president, said he would have used U.S. forces to remove Moammar Gadhafi rather than just bomb Libya as President Obama has done.

I would tell Gadhafi he’s got X number of days to get his affairs in order and go or we’re going to go get him,” Pawlenty said in an interview with the Tribune-Review on Friday.

Now that Obama got bin Laden, it seems all conservatives really have on the President is that he’s not killing more people.

TIMELINE: The Hunt For Bin Laden

Much of the debate in the aftermath of Osama bin Laden’s death has focused on the very narrow question of whether any information obtained from waterboarding or other “enhanced” interrogation tactics played a significant role in tracking him down. (The answer, incidentally, is no.)

But this debate has obscured a larger and more important point: The Bush administration, both before and after 9/11, subordinated the hunt for Bin Laden to wage war on Iraq. President Obama was successful by reviving an aggressive and focused effort to capture the leader of Al Qaeda.

ThinkProgress has produced a new a detailed timeline of The Hunt for Bin Laden, covering the years 1993 to present day. You can check out the whole thing HERE.

Highlights from the Clinton administration:

EARLY 1996: The CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center creates a special unit focusing specifically on bin Laden. [Washington Post, 10/3/01]

LATE 1998: Clinton authorizes covert action against Bin Laden and al Qaeda. “In addition to a secret ‘finding’ to authorize covert action…Clinton signed three highly classified Memoranda of Notification expanding the available tools. In succession, the president authorized killing instead of capturing bin Laden, then added several of al Qaeda’s senior lieutenants, and finally approved the shooting down of private civilian aircraft on which they flew.” [Washington Post, 12/19/01]

Highlights from the Bush administration:

JANUARY 2001: Condoleezza Rice demotes terrorism czar Richard Clarke. [The 9/11 Commission Report. 7/22/04]

FEBRUARY 2002: Military and intelligence resources diverted to Iraq. [Knight-Ridder, 6/18/05]

LATE 2005: CIA closes unit focused on capture of bin Laden. [New York Times, 7/4/06]

SEPTEMBER 2006: Fred Barnes told by President Bush that the hunt for Bin Laden was “not a top priority use of American resources.” [Fox News 9/14/06]

Highlights from the Obama administration:

OCTOBER 7, 2008: Obama: “We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.”

DECEMBER 7, 2009: Obama National Security Advisor James Jones stresses the urgency of finding Bin Laden and speaks “of a renewed campaign to capture or kill him.” [AP, 12/7/09]

You can check out the full timeline HERE.

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up