Think Progress has taken it upon themselves to call Alabama’s voters “stupid” for passing a law that protects their citizens from foreign laws, including Shariah law, which is the law that governs Islam. So why would Alabama’s voters feel that it was necessary to ban Shariah law from being upheld in their courts? Well, likely they saw the gross miscarriage of justice that was a ruling by a New Jersey judge in 2007 in a divorce case when he found that a Muslim man was entitled to rape his wife since it was allowable in his religion.

“This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.”

Detractors have objected to the Alabama law saying that it was written poorly and may in fact obstruct other religious organizations from being able to hire or ordain people as they see fit. Sorry folks, you are mistaken. The only sticky point in the Alabama law could be in the realm of contract law when it comes to governing law provisions. According to a posting on his blog  Volokh Conspiracy, University of California Los Angeles law professor Eugene Volokh explains the law could imply that choice-of-law provisions are now invalid in Alabama courts.

“That language could mean choice-of-law contractual provisions are invalid in Alabama courts, or it could mean that Alabama courts can’t be required to apply such contractual provisions, but could choose to do so under Alabama choice-of-law rules, the Volokh says. “This will take some litigation to resolve,” he concludes.”

In other words, Alabama simply joined many other states: Kansas, North Carolina, Louisiana, Arizona to name a few, to ensure that the Constitutional rights of their citizens are protected in their courts. The Alabama law passed with support from 72% of the voting electorate which is pretty impressive. The wording of this legislation will also be more likely to stick than an earlier incarnation introduced in 2012 by Senator Gerald Allen (R) from Alabama, and more likely than the version that was passed in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma version explicitly named Shariah, therefore a judge felt justified in finding that it “unfairly impacted Muslims” and was therefore struck down in 2013.

So, when your liberal feminist friends tell you how stupid Alabama was for “banning Shariah” you can explain to them why it was necessary to protect women from the courts and the “religion of peace” and to ensure their rights to live with the same Constitutional protections as the rest of us. After all, isn’t that what “feminism” aims to do for all women? Oh, and you’re welcome.