But the fact is that the application of sharia law in the U.S. is not a threat, “existential” or otherwise. Rather, it’s an attempt to impose a double standard on Islam that does not apply to other faiths.

Suppose, for example, a person of the Catholic faith divorces his or her spouse. Under civil law, there is no impediment to that person remarrying. But under canonical law, there is. The Catholic Church does not marry divorced persons – at least not while the divorced spouse is still alive. But if our hypothetical divorced person wishes to remarry within the Catholic Church, it may be possible to appeal to a canonical court for an annulment – i.e., a declaration invalidating the first marriage in the eyes of the church. In that case, a divorced person may remarry with Catholic rites.

People of the Jewish faith may consult rabbinical courts to resolve similar questions regarding marriages, inheritances and other family issues. In short, unbeknownst to many Americans, religious law has coexisted with civil law in this country for years. So why should there be any objection to Muslims in this country having recourse to sharia to resolve the same kinds of issues resolved by canonical and rabbinical courts for Catholic and Jewish Americans?

“Ah,” you may reply. “But the laws being enacted in this case do not prohibit the application of sharia to Muslim Americans by a local imam. They are merely intended to ensure that civil courts do not apply sharia law.”

But if that is the object, surely such laws are unnecessary. It is no more likely that a civil court in this country would apply sharia than it would apply canonical or rabbinical law. Furthermore, a recent study of Muslim opinion in this country and Canada indicates that Muslims overwhelmingly oppose the application of sharia by civil courts.

The study was undertaken by a law professor at the University of Windsor named Julie MacFarlane. Professor MacFarlane interviewed 101 Muslim men and women, 41 imams, and 70 community leaders and specialists about their uses of Islamic law in everyday life. A quarter of the respondents lived in Canada, the rest in the U.S. But MacFarlane found no significant difference between the Canadian and American responses.

And how did the Muslims interviewed respond to the question of whether they thought American courts should apply religious law to non-Muslims? All of them said no.

In her survey, Professor MacFarlane concentrated on Muslims who are divorced. She found that all persons she interviewed who had a legal marriage formally divorced through the civil courts after obtaining permission from an imam. Some imams would not grant a religious divorce until the couple first submitted a civil divorce decree.

“For most American Muslims,” concluded Professor MacFarlane, sharia represents a private system of morality and identity, primarily focused on marriage and divorce rituals.”

Professor MacFarlane’s study was not scientifically designed to obtain an accurate cross-section, so it is not certain whether her sample is representative of American Muslim opinion as a whole. But given the fact that American Muslims constitute less than one percent of the American population, this study is a healthy antidote to wild claims of “creeping sharia” in the U.S.A. The complete study will be published in a book form by Oxford University Press in April. Let us hope that it will help relieve Americans of some unnecessary anxiety.

Hal Gordon, who wrote speeches for the Reagan White House and Gen. Colin Powell, is currently a freelance speechwriter in Houston. Web site: www.ringingwords.com.