by Shiry Sapir | Feb 6, 2026 | Opinion
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.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 17, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona House Ethics Chair Lupe Diaz (R-LD19) blasted Democrats Friday for “weaponizing” complaints against Rep. John Gillette (R-LD30). Democrat Reps. Oscar De Los Santos, Nancy Gutierrez, Quanta Crews, and Stacey Travers filed a complaint on September 10, citing an interview from Gillette and social media posts. They called his remarks “offensive” and “unbecoming of an elected official,” noting his criticism of radical Islamists and Sharia law.
In a string of posts to X referred to in the Democrats’ complaint, Rep. Gillette wrote, “Islamophobia is a construct of the Marxist left I reject. I hear them state that they stand with Hamas and Iran, they want to bring Sharia Law to the US. They chant death to US. I have years of direct experience with these savages. [Their] own religion preached convert or die. F**K EM. If they want here to become the s**t hole they left… they can go home. The democrats support them. DEMOCRATS HATE AMERICA!”
Responding to subsequent comments, he clarified his position, stating, “I was critical of their policies. “Shiria(sic) Law and convert or die” are policy positions of Islam. Democrats want to install Socialism as a policy. I criticize both as they are repugnant to the Constitution. My reply is based on experience in the Middle East and Soviet Union. Not some leftist theory cooked up in a liberal college classroom with the same professors and systems that say there are 32 genders.. grow up and see reality…. remember Covid when you were told to wear a face covering, not work. The left forced this on us, not people like me.”
In their complaint, the Democrat lawmakers claimed, “Rep. Gillette referred to Muslims as ‘f***ing savages’ who don’t properly ‘assimilate’ into American culture. By referring to Muslims as ‘savages’ and ‘terrorists,’ Rep. Gillette dehumanized them and demonstrates his bigotry against an entire religious group, which constitutes about 1% of the population in this state.”
In a letter responding to the Democrat representatives, Chairman Diaz wrote that “remarks, statements, or opinions by a member, alone, are not traditionally the subject of an ethics inquiry. Subject to our House Rules regarding debate, members—like any other citizen—have a First Amendment right to the freedom of speech, as well as a right to freely speak under Article 2, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution.”
Citing the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Diaz added, “Moreover, particularly in light of recent events, it is imperative that government institutions protect the freedom of speech, rather than take actions to silence, punish, or censor speech simply because someone might find it offensive or disagreeable. The inquiry you request this Committee to make would result in no more than an inquiry into the sincerity of Representative Gillette’s beliefs or a debate into the merits of those beliefs— neither for which an Ethics Committee hearing is the proper venue.”
Diaz concluded, “It would be inconsistent with constitutional principles—and unprecedented, based on past practices of previous House Ethics Committee Chairmen presented with similar complaints to undertake any further review or investigation of your complaint. Accordingly, I will not take further action on this matter.”
He further added an admonishment to the Democratic representatives, urging them to review Rep. Gillette’s response to their press release announcing the complaint, entitled “Defending America Against Radical Ideologies and Political Hypocrisy,” and added, “To the extent that you have any lingering concerns about his statements, it would be prudent to engage in civil discourse rather than weaponizing the House Ethics Complaint process.”
In the statement, Gillette explained in part, “Immigrants are welcomed here as guests who can become fellow citizens, and gratitude, respect, and loyalty to our nation are the minimum expectations. Yet too often, what we see instead is a demand that Americans change our culture, our speech, or our religion so as not to ‘offend’ those who chose to come here. That is not assimilation—it is subversion. I will treat every human being with dignity and respect. But I will not, and Americans must not bow to the demands of those who place their foreign ideologies above our Constitution.”
Gillette defined the group he opposes as “radical Islamists,” who seek “the establishment of a worldwide caliphate,” adding, “While some [in] the Muslim world may practice their faith peacefully, many more have weaponized the concept of jihad to justify terrorism, mass murder, and political conquest.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Jul 31, 2025 | Education, News
By Matthew Holloway |
In the aftermath of the controversial whistleblower audio released in May, the Catalina Foothills School District (CFSD) has responded by banning students from recording “a classroom teacher or administrator” without permission, according to Save CFSD.
The audio released in May included an alleged teacher criticizing the religious texts of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism on LGBTQ issues in a 9th grade health classroom.
In addition to the new prohibitions, Dan Grossenbach, a CFSD parent, resident, and contributor to Save CFSD, shared an email with AZ Free News from the district indicating that the teacher involved has faced zero disciplinary action.
In his email, Grossenbach explained, “In public statements, CFSD administration implied to State48 and the AZ Daily Star editorial page that they fired the teacher, but the district has confirmed to me by email that there was no discipline.”
According to Grossenbach, the board launched its efforts to prevent students from creating any further classroom recordings in an unscheduled meeting on Tuesday.
“They held an unplanned/emergency meeting on Tuesday to pass a policy they claimed was based on a new law banning cell phones,” Grossenbach said. “However, they added a line about banning classroom recordings, electronic recorders, or posting any audio publicly. They added that teachers have the right to search and seize all personal items and threatened student expulsion.”
Grossenbach further said that the district has not made its sex-education curriculum publicly available as required under Arizona Revised Statutes § 15-711.
Save CFSD shared a lengthy thread to X, outlining the new policies enacted by the district.
According to screenshots provided by the group, the district made two major changes to its existing policies:
1. Restricting student access to social media platforms except as allowed by the student’s teacher for educational purposes; and
2. Limiting the use of wireless communication devices by students during the school day, exceptions include allowing student use of wireless communication devices for medical needs, educational purposes as directed by the student’s teacher, or during an emergency.
However, included in these policies are a few key points. The use of a “PD” or personal electronic device, including, but not limited to “cellular telephones, digital audio players, digital cameras, laptop computers, tablet computers, pagers, portable game players, smartwatches, smart glasses, and any new technology developed with similar capabilities,” now falls under the district’s policy for “Electronic Information Services” and under those terms:
“Each user of the District’s EIS, including a user of a PD shall:
- Obtain permission to record, transmit, or post photos or a video of a person with any electronic device.
- Obtain permission from a classroom teacher or administrator before making publicly available any images, video, or audio files recorded at school.”
Essentially, the new policy presents a de facto ban on any student recording a teacher or administrator without their permission, rendering future whistleblowing impossible without risking potential expulsion. Finally, the policy empowers school officials to “search and/or seize student property, if there are reasonable grounds that the search and seizure will reveal evidence that the student has violated or is violating the law or a District Policy procedure or school rule.”
The policy also states explicitly: “This authority extends to student-owned electronic/technology devices and electronic storage.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | May 26, 2025 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
A German politician arguing the question of whether to admit yet more Afghan nationals cited official government statistics regarding the crime rates, especially rape, committed by these migrants. Under German censorship laws, she has now been found guilty of illegal hate speech twice, fined thousands of euros, and been given a criminal record, simply for stating government-produced facts.
The United Kingdom, once a bastion of free speech, is now moving toward ever more strict speech restrictions. Meanwhile prosecutors, reluctant to anger Islamists, ignore grooming gangs preying on young women.
In the U.S., pro-Palestinian protesters broke into a graduation dinner at the home of the Berkeley law dean, screaming and chanting. No disciplinary measures were taken against the perpetrators, but the dean’s wife was accused of racism and Islamophobia. A civil rights investigation was launched against her.
Although most Americans are not fully aware, Islamist influences in our culture have become much more pronounced in the last few years. Islamists are still committed to the transformation of Western society into a universal Muslim caliphate. Such is Allah’s will. “Submission” (to Allah) is a translation of “Islam.” Time is not of the essence, but success is considered inevitable.
In the past, the never-ending effort to convert or kill unbelievers was carried out mainly through acts of terrorism. Islamists physically attacked crowds, beheaded civilians, and flew planes into buildings hoping to intimidate the infidels.
Western democracies responded with measures sacrificing personal liberties for security, which worked to stymie the high-profile attacks. In the 2016 election, terrorism was the second rated concern for Americans, slightly lagging behind the economy. By 2024, Islamic atrocities didn’t register in the polls.
But as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim and prominent advocate for international women’s rights, pointed out in the Hoover Digest, it would be a mistake to conclude that we defeated or even made any progress against Islamist jihadism. Instead, elements within Islam who argued for more gradual methods of subversion from within prevailed over those favoring frontal assaults.
Agents of radicalization have built up large networks of operators in the U.S. and other democracies. They identify and radicalize subjects vulnerable to Islamist messaging. Their emphasis now is to concentrate on converting one person at a time. One institution, one professor, one community are influenced to reject all thoughts of assimilation and instead join an exciting international movement to change the world.
The Islamists are seeing much greater success with their new strategy. Social media, including TikTok, is especially effective at spreading such messages among the uninformed, often using the language of our historic civil rights movement. Few of the new converts to Islamist wokeness can offer any information on the Gaza “genocide” they protest.
The Internet is being diverted from its former free-speech ideals into a regime of surveillance and censorship. Islamists have successfully infiltrated not only mosques, but universities, political organizations, and immigrant groups. Unassimilated immigrants and young males particularly make ready targets for conversion to Islamism.
The shifts in public opinion resulting from this propaganda campaign are becoming felt. The pervasive rise of virulent antisemitism among the young, especially on college campuses, and the tendency to attribute all social wrongs to Western influence should ring alarm bells. It’s not just the kids either. Teamsters Union members were recently videotaped at their Chicago headquarters learning to chant “death to Israel” and “death to America” —in Farsi, no less.
Islamists have also been able to use our beloved legal protections, unknown in their jurisdictions, against us. The meaning of “Islamophobia” has been changed from an irrational dislike of Muslims to virtually any unfavorable fact or opinion, no matter how justified. Thus Islamists, even as they despise and condemn us, have an all-purpose shield defending them from any criticism, including of their trademark terrorism.
Islamists seem to possess the mindset that their time may have come. The West is weak and vulnerable, with many no longer believing their ideals are worth defending. Western Europe is trending to Islamist-inspired policymaking with regard to speech and law-enforcement.
In the U.S., these threats are more distant, but the trends are ominous. Islamists are content to play the long game. For now, they are gaining ground.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
by Staff Reporter | May 22, 2025 | Education, News
By Staff Reporter |
Editor’s Note: A Higley Unified School District spokesperson has denied that the Quran was taught to Pre-K students. The spokesperson has claimed that that social media post (see below) was due to an autocorrect error that changed Qatar to Quran. AZ Free News attempted to recreate the autocorrect error with no success. A search of Google AI indicates that “Qatar” is not likely to autocorrect to “Quran.”
An East Valley school is coming under fire from parents for teaching the Quran to pre-kindergarten students.
Children involved in the PreK THINK! Highly Gifted Academy at the Sossaman Early Childhood Development Center within the Higley Unified School District (HUSD) got an impromptu lesson on the Islamic religion this week.
A teacher for gifted students, Janet Williams, allowed the father of one student to teach the class about the Quran. In a picture posted by Williams to a forum frequented by parents, a father wearing Islamic garb offers the children to inspect his clothing.
“We celebrated [a student’s] birthday and his dad told us all about Quran,” said Williams.
Peggy McClain, who runs the Not in Our Schools website, questioned the legality and fairness of the school allowing a lesson on the Islamic religion.
“Where is the separation of church and state we are always lectured about?” asked McClain. “Look what happened in a Pre-K in a Higley District school, they discussed the Quran.”
A parent asked whether HUSD would allow their daughter to teach the Mormon religion to students next.
“Since you’re allowing members of the community to come in and share their religion, my daughter is a missionary for the LDS church and would love to stop by with treats and a quick message about Jesus Christ,” said the parent. “My Catholic and Jewish friends want their turn, too.”
Schools may not compel religious action, such as prayer. Coercion violates the separation of church and state, according to the advocacy group Secular Arizona. Schools may also not distribute religious materials, or present religious content as true or false, or present religious doctrines or beliefs as factual.
“It is easy for a teacher to give students the impression that submitting to an unwanted religious exercise is required, expected, or preferred, even if you don’t mean to do that,” stated Secular Arizona. “Students have an absolute right to be free from that pressure.”
Arizona’s chief executive and legal officer are vocally opposed to religious influence in public education. Both women have consistently maintained that religion in the classroom violates the “separation of church and state” — not an exact phrase enumerated in the U.S. Constitution but a concept derived from the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.
The Establishment Clause prohibits Congress from making laws establishing religion, while the Free Exercise Clause stops Congress from making laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Last year, Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill approved by the legislature to allow schools to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms.
Hobbs asserted in her veto letter that the display of the Christian religious text was not only not essential for education but likely unconstitutional.
“Not only do I have serious concerns about the constitutionality of this legislation, it is also unnecessary,” said Hobbs.
Last month, Attorney General Kris Mayes joined 17 attorneys general in a legal fight before the U.S. Supreme Court against the creation of the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school.
“Charter schools are not private schools – they are public schools,” said Attorney General Mayes. “Allowing religious charter schools would force states to choose between violating the Constitution or dismantling their public charter systems.”
In 2023, HUSD again irked parents when it relaxed its dress code policy to allow for clothing which expose the chest, abdomen, and midriff.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
