By Shiry Sapir |

Arizona is debating SB 1018, a bill that defines Sharia law as “foreign law” for purposes of Arizona statute. For many people, this raises understandable questions. Is this necessary? Is it constitutional? Is it fair? And is it really about Islam?

Those questions deserve serious answers, not slogans.

At its core, this debate turns on a simple but critical distinction: Does the law regulate belief, or does it regulate what our courts will enforce? The Constitution protects belief absolutely. It does not require the state to enforce religious rules as civil law.

That line has long been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia summarized it plainly when he wrote that religious belief does not excuse individuals from compliance with neutral laws of general applicability. In other words, you are free to practice your religion, but the law applies equally to everyone.

SB 1018 does not criminalize prayer, worship, charity, fasting, or personal religious observance. Muslims in Arizona, like people of all faiths, remain fully protected in how they live and practice their religion. What the bill addresses instead is jurisdiction: whether Arizona courts should ever recognize or excuse conduct under a foreign legal system when that conduct violates Arizona law or constitutional rights.

Opponents often argue that raising this issue is “Islamophobic.” But that claim deserves closer examination. A phobia is an irrational fear. What is being discussed here is not fear. It is documented legal outcomes. International human-rights organizations, including the United Nations, have repeatedly documented that in many Sharia-based legal systems, women and children face outcomes that would be unacceptable under American law: forced or underage marriage, unequal legal status, discriminatory custody rules, and punishments that violate basic standards of bodily integrity and due process.

This is not a statement about Muslims as people or about Islam as a faith. It is a statement about how certain legal systems operate when religious doctrine is treated as enforceable law. Unlike personal religious observance, Sharia has historically functioned in many countries as a comprehensive civil and family law system, governing marriage, divorce, custody, inheritance, and punishment.

Why should Arizona hesitate to say—clearly and without apology—that practices such as honor-based violence, female genital mutilation, and child marriage are not welcome here, regardless of where they may be accepted elsewhere? These are not abstract concerns. They are real harms, and the primary victims are overwhelmingly Muslim women and girls. Protecting them is not bigotry; it is basic human decency.

In several countries that apply Sharia-based family law, custody and guardianship rules subordinate the best interests of the child to rigid doctrinal standards, often disadvantaging mothers in divorce. Arizona’s refusal to recognize or excuse such outcomes is not hostility toward faith; it is solidarity with women and children whose rights deserve protection everywhere.

This is where some well-meaning voices hesitate. They worry that naming Sharia law singles out a religion. That concern should be taken seriously, but it should also be addressed honestly. The purpose of SB 1018 is not to judge theology. It is to make clear that Arizona recognizes only one system of enforceable law: the Constitution and the laws enacted under it.

Courts already do this in practice. They refuse to enforce contracts obtained through coercion. They reject foreign judgments that violate public policy. They do not excuse violence, abuse, or the denial of equal protection because someone claims a cultural or religious justification. SB 1018 seeks to clarify that principle, not invent it.

The cautionary example often cited is Oklahoma’s 2010 “Save Our State” ballot measure, which was struck down by the courts. That case matters, but it is frequently misunderstood. Oklahoma’s measure failed because it appeared to condemn a religion itself, rather than focusing on harm or enforceability. The lesson is not that states lack authority to protect constitutional supremacy. The lesson is that laws must be carefully drafted, neutral in application, and focused on conduct, not belief.

Arizona can do better by learning from that history.

No statute can reach into private rooms or compel victims to come forward. That is true of laws against child abuse, domestic violence, and human trafficking. But the fact that wrongdoing can be hidden has never been a reason to leave the law ambiguous about what the state will tolerate or excuse when harm does surface. This law does not end religious practice; it ensures that when harm occurs, no religious or cultural rule, of any kind, can be used to justify it.

This debate should not be about fear, and it should not be about faith. It should be about clarity.

Arizona can affirm two truths at once: that religious freedom is a foundational American value, and that no one’s rights, safety, or bodily integrity are negotiable under the law.

For those reasons, SB 1018 deserves support as a clear, careful affirmation of equal justice. Arizona should set the rhetoric aside and stand with those who bear the real-world consequences.

Shiry Sapir serves as the First Vice Chair of the Republican Party of Arizona.