A renewed version of the foreign law bill proposed by Senator Alan Hays has been passed by the Florida House. The bill targets Islamic Sharia law although supporters of the proposal say that the intent isn’t to target specific religious groups.

There are several misconceptions about what sharia actually is. Senior Ali Fazel said, “Sharia law is the law we derive from looking at the verses of the Quran and the life of the Holy Prophet [Muhammad]. It is what God has made lawful for us and what he has not made lawful for us.”

The bill’s original intent was to minimize the incorporation of religious law into their national laws. Community leader and chairman of American Muslim Community Centers Atif Fareed said, “[The bill] says foreign law but really targets religious law. It can affect Catholic Canon law, Jewish halacha or Islam’s Sharia law.”

He continued by saying, “The reason the media refers to it as the anti-Sharia law is because this is the third year that the same bill has been introduced.” The bill failed in the previous two attempts under the name of an anti-Sharia law and this time, the word ‘sharia’ has been taken out from the bill.

If this bill is passed by the Senate, there could be interference not only with Islamic law, but Jewish law as well. For example, the law could interfere with Jewish divorce settlements.

Other matters such as marriage and inheritance could also become problematic. Fareed said, “If passed, a marriage that is conducted by religious law…may not be recognized in Florida. [Likewise], a divorce may not be recognized, [nor] child custody. An inheritance written by religious code, if challenged, could be put aside by the Courts if this law is passes, invalidating the wishes of the deceased.”

Supporters of the law say that while no cases have taken place in Florida courts where applying a foreign-based law has violated any part of the US Constitution, the law is a way to prevent from any such cases from occurring. However, opposition states that the bill is unnecessary because no case has ever occurred where the law has been needed.

Junior Johnathan Gumpankgum said, “Those who feel [that they must] adhere to [their] school of thought should be free to do so, so long as no other part feels legitimately threatened.”

The future is unclear for the law; it still needs to pass in the Senate.