Gadeir Abbas

Council on American-Islamic Relations

453 New Jersey Ave S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tele 720-251-0425 Fax 202 488 0833
E-mail: gabbas@cair.com, URL www.cair.com

Review of Tennessee Senate Bill 1028

This memorandum is meant as a summary of proposed Senate Bill 1028. The bill
would effectively make being a Muslim in Tennessee a crime. While the analysis below
is not exhaustive, it does provide a general introduction to how this piece of legislation
would affect Muslims in Tennessee.

In criminalizing Muslims from knowingly adhering to “Sharia,” the bill makes

criminal the practice of Islam. This is because the law’s definition of “Sharia” is, in
practical terms, the entire religious tradition of Islam. “Sharia,” says the law, includes the
“set of rules, precepts, instructions, or edicts” based upon sources from “the god of Allah
or the prophet Mohammed.”1 This definition would encompass the Koran and the
prophetic traditions entirely. And by incorporating this definition, the bill criminalizes
for Muslims what it leaves untouched for adherents to other religions: the freedom to use
the wisdom found in revelation to guide one’s life.

One section of the bill elaborates on the contours of what it considers to be

criminally proscribed “sharia.” It states that “prima facie sharia” requiring no “further
evidentiary showing” to demonstrate that it is “sharia” encompasses all content derived
from “any of the authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence of Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’I,
Hanbali, Ja’afariya, or Salafi.”2 Criminalizing a Muslim’s use of the theology interpreted
by these Islamic Scholars is the equivalent of telling Jews that it is a crime to incorporate
into their lives the teachings of Moses ben-Maimon and for Catholics the teachings of
Pope John Paul II.

The bill implements its oppression by giving authority to Tennessee’s Attorney

General to “designate an organization as a sharia organization” if that organization
“knowingly adheres to sharia.”3 It defines a “sharia organization” as “any two (2)
persons conspiring to support, or acting in concert in support of sharia.”4 In making a
designation that an organization is a “sharia organization,” the Attorney General can
include information not “subject to disclosure” to the party so designated and only
reviewable “to a court ex parte and in camera,” which is Latin for in the absence of
defendants and in secret.5 Thus, neither the persons nor entities adversely designated by
1
39-13-904(1) [p.4]
2
39-13-904 (1) [p.4-5]
3
39-13-905(a)(1) and 39-13-904 (a)(1)(A) [p.5]
4
39-13-904(1) [p.5]
5
39-13-904(a) (3)(B)(ii) [p.7]

1
the bill—or even the public—would ever be able to review the evidence used to
criminalize their existence.

And once notice of this designation has been served to the persons or entities
targeted, the Attorney General can “require financial institutions doing business in this
state” that possess or control any assets of those persons or entities “to block all financial
transactions.”6 Indeed, financial institutions that have “possession of, or control over,
any funds” in which a designated organization has an interest must report to the attorney
general “the existence of such funds.”7 Failure to do so subjects the financial institution
to a fine of at least “fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) per violation.”8 Thus, the Attorney
General, in his sole discretion, can freeze the bank accounts of Muslims who practice
their faith because they practice their faith and demand that freeze from financial
institutions by means of the threat of exorbitant fines.

The ultimate purpose of these designations is to criminalize “any person who

knowingly provides material support or resources” or even “attempts or conspires to do
so” for an organization so designated.9 This crime is punishable by “imprisonment of not
less than fifteen years.”10 The term “material support” covers almost every possible
modicum of participation, however innocent, examples of which one can find in any
Islamic religious community. The bill makes it a crime to provide “any property…or
service” to an organization designated as a “sharia organization.” Thus, donating to such
an organization would be a crime. Helping paint a mosque would be a crime. Quite
frankly, the bill would criminalize things as inane as bringing a tray of kabobs to a
community potluck.

But the law goes even a step further. If the attorney general believes that “any
person is engaged in, or about to engage in” an act that would violate the bill’s
aforementioned provision, the attorney general can “initiate civil action” in order to
“enjoin such [a] violation.”11 Thus, before the attorney general has a Muslim arresting
for donating to a mosque or helping paint it or bringing that tray of kabobs to the potluck,
the bill authorizes a court to order Muslims not to upon the request of the attorney
general. In making its request, the attorney general may do so “ex parte,” using
“stipulations admitting relevant facts” that the attorney general himself infers from secret
evidence, and summaries of secret evidence.12 These allowances would permit the
attorney general to initiate, conduct, and conclude secret court proceedings based on
secret evidence against Muslim persons and Islamic entities.

The bill also creates a right for private persons in Tennessee to “sue in any
appropriate circuit court” for violations of the bill. It entitles such private persons to
“recover three (3) times the damages sustained” in addition to the “cost of the suit” from
6
39-13-905(a)(2)(B) [p.7]
7
39-13-906(a)(4)(B) [p.15]
8
39-13-906(b)(1) [p.15]
9
39-13-906(a)(1)(A) [p.13]
10
39-13-906(a)(1)(B) [p.13]
11
39-13-906(c) [p.16]
12
39-13-906(c)(2)(A) and 39-13-906(c)(2)(A)(ii) [p.17]

2
a person who violates the bill. Thus, the bill empowers individual persons to sue
Muslims and Islamic entities for adhering to their faith.

There are numerous constitutional infirmities with this bill. So many infirmities
exist that it is my opinion that there is perhaps no federal judge that would be unwilling
to strike down the law in its entirety. By isolating Islam for special approbation, the bill
is a gross violation of both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First
Amendment. And by threatening jail time for Muslims that adhere to their faith, the bill
runs roughshod over the liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. These
are claims that will likely prevail in federal court. However, the harm done to the
Muslim community if this bill passes through the Legislature is large even if a court
ultimately stops the law from being implemented. It is incumbent upon us all to work to
stop this bill as soon as possible.