Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:37 pm Post subject: De Facto Islamic Shariah Law in America, Dhimmitude
evil satanic Islamic shariah law
De Facto Shariah Law - in America!
By Janet Levy - Is the United States today a de facto shariah state? A close look at recent events points to some alarming conclusions about the tenets of shariah law taking hold in our once-proud constitutional republic and the unwitting, unequal application of existing U.S. laws.
The result is that when it comes to religious expression, Muslims now enjoy more freedom of religion and speech under our Bill of Rights than non-Muslims. Equal protection under the laws of our country holds for Muslims far better than for non-Muslims. Several recent examples illustrate this point.
In October, students at a Chattanooga, Tennessee high school were told that their longtime tradition of praying at practice and before games would no longer be allowed. The school superintendent had called an end to prayer at all school functions following a complaint from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
In July, students visiting the Supreme Court from an Arizona Christian school were stopped by police as they bowed their heads and quietly prayed for the justices. The students were standing outside the court building to the side at the bottom of the building steps. They weren't blocking traffic, but an officer abruptly approached them and ordered them to stop praying immediately.
Four Christians were arrested in June for disorderly conduct at the Dearborn Arab International Festival after handing out copies of the Gospel of John. The four had stationed themselves five blocks from the festival and did not actively approach anyone, but instead waited for others to approach them. Still, police officers confiscated their video cameras and led the four Christians away in handcuffs to shouts of "Allah hu Akbar" from Muslim bystanders.
In June of 2006, an instrumental rendition of "Ave Maria" was banned at the Henry Jackson High School graduation in Everett, Washington. Despite Justice Samuel Alito's protests, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider whether the case was an example of censorship of student speech.
In direct contrast to the above incidents, which limit Christian prayer and expression, numerous examples exist of special accommodations for Muslim activities and religious practices. These indicate an adherence to a separate and distinct policy for Muslims that mirrors the supremacist requirements of shariah law.
In the State of California, 7th-grade students at Excelsior Middle School in Discovery Bay, California adopted Muslim names, prayed on prayer rugs, and celebrated Ramadan under a state-mandated curriculum that requires instruction about various religions. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court again declined to hear legal challenges by concerned Excelsior parents, who complained that the instruction was actually religious indoctrination and that Christianity and Judaism were not given equal time and exposure. The curriculum has been upheld as appropriate multicultural material.
After Carver Elementary School in San Diego absorbed Muslim students from a defunct charter school in September 2006, a special recess was provided for the students to pray, classes were segregated by gender, and pork was removed from the school menu. A teacher's aide at the school led children in prayer and was provided with a lesson plan allotting an hour of class time for Islamic prayer. In essence, Muslim students alone were privileged with public school time to practice their religion at an additional cost of $450,000 in public funds and a loss of instruction time. (Note: Looked this up also and revised it a bit as well.)
In May, students at a Wellesley, Massachusetts middle school visited a local radical mosque and participated in a prayer session. Parents, who gave signed permission for students to visit the mosque, were not informed in advance that students would also be bowing to Allah and listening to lectures on Islam. Surprisingly, teachers did nothing to intervene as students participated and a mosque spokesperson denigrated Western civilization while glorifying and misrepresenting Islam, even falsely referring to the greater rights of women under Islam. Astonishingly, this occurred in a state that has prohibited the sale of Christmas items, including red and green tissue paper, at a school store and forced firefighters to remove a "Merry Christmas" sign from their station.
Over the last few years, the University of Michigan, a taxpayer-funded school, has provided separate prayer rooms and ritual foot baths, requiring bathroom modifications costing over $100,000, for Muslim observances.
At Minneapolis Community and Technical College, where religious displays, including those for Christmas, have been strictly prohibited, foot-washing facilities are being installed using taxpayer dollars after one student slipped and injured herself washing her feet in a sink. Director of Legal Affairs and President Phil Davis justified the disparate treatment of Muslims, explaining, "The foot-washing facilities are not about religion; they are about public safety."
Muslims periodically block the streets of New York City, prostrating themselves in the middle of roadways and sidewalks undisturbed by police and other authorities. The resulting traffic jams are ignored, the double- and illegally parked vehicles are free of citations, and law enforcement officers are nowhere to be seen. Surely, practitioners of other religions or groups planning similar gatherings would be required to obtain permits for such an activity. Reportedly, the police have been ordered not to interfere with the Muslim prayer spectacle.
These special accommodations for Muslims effectively elevate the Islamic faith above that of Christians and Jews, reinforcing the message of the Koran -- "Allah proclaims Islam over all other religions" (48:2, "Islam will dominate other religions" (9:33), and "Islam does not coexist with other faiths" (5:51). Muslims are required by the teachings of their faith to conquer and subjugate non-Muslims and Ensure worldwide submission to Islam -- "The believers must make war on infidels around them and let the infidels find firmness in them" (9:123).
Under Islamic shariah law, Christians may not even speak to Muslims about Christianity nor provide them with any literature about Christianity. With the recent arrests of Christians in Dearborn juxtaposed with prostrate Muslim worshipers in Manhattan (where a mosque is planned at Ground Zero at the same location where a church will not be rebuilt), it appears that the principles of Islamic supremacy and prohibitions against Christian proselytizing have begun to gain traction in America.
Meanwhile, Christianity in America is withering as Bible study is eradicated in public schools, crosses are removed from the public square, and "winter holidays" replace Christmas celebrations. Remarkably, as Christianity is being dethroned and denied public expression, Islam is being unabashedly and openly promoted in what has been a Christian country for over two hundred years. It is truly remarkable that as American students chant prayers in Arabic in California's classrooms, Christmas music and graphics that refer to both Christmas and Chanukah are prohibited in New Jersey.
READ the following links! BE INFORMED! NOT DECEIVED!
CAIR sues Oklahoma for banning Islamic law
Nov 2010 Unindicted terrorist co-conspirator reacts after 70% of voters approve.
The Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations announced today it will file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state ballot measure that bars judges from considering Islamic law in any ruling.
On Tuesday, with about a dozen other states watching, Oklahoma became the first state to put before voters the proposition that Islamic courts, Islamic law – known as Shariah – and Shariah-based court decisions should be banned.
State Question 755, a constitutional amendment, was approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters. But at a news conference today, CAIR-OK Executive Director Muneer Awad called the measure unnecessary and offensive.
"There's no threat," Awad said, according to The Oklahoman newspaper. "It's a legal impossibility."
Awad was joined at the news conference by Chuck Thornton, deputy director of ACLU-Oklahoma; Imad Enchassi, imam of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City; and Nathaniel Batchelder, director of the Central Oklahoma Human Rights Association.
Nov 2010 Sharia law should be introduced into UK legal system, says leading barrister.
A leading barrister has said that Sharia law should be incorporated into the English legal system.
Hockman said Sharia law could improve relations between faith groups
Stephen Hockman QC, a former chairman of the Bar Council, reportedly suggested that a group of MPs and legal figures should be convened to plan how elements of the Muslim religious-legal code could be introduced.
After speaking at an event organised by the website Islam4UK at the National Liberal Club, Whitehall, Mr Hockman reportedly told The Daily Express: “Given our substantial Muslim population, it is vital that we look at ways to integrate Muslim culture into our traditions. Otherwise we will find that there is a significant section of our society which is increasingly alienated, with very dangerous results.
“There should perhaps be a standing committee comprising Parliamentarians, lawyers and religious leaders to consider how this could be achieved and what legal changes might be framed.”
Sharia law has been criticised for its prevention of some rights for women. Mr Hockman reportedly conceded: “The position of women is one area where the emphasis is, to the say the least, rather different.”
He reportedly added that the incorporation of Sharia could improve relations between faith groups and boost the country’s security.
He said: “I am also sometimes confronted by those who point out that there are elements within the Muslim community who pose a threat to our very security. My answer is not to dispute them but to suggest that it is for those of us forming part of the majority community to address such problems.”
Schoolboys punished with detention for refusing to kneel in class and pray to Allah
Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson.
Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.
They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent - which included wearing Muslim headgear - was a breach of their human rights.
One parent, Sharon Luinen, said: "This isn't right, it's taking things too far.
"I understand that they have to learn about other religions. I can live with that but it is taking it a step too far to be punished because they wouldn't join in Muslim prayer.
"Making them pray to Allah, who isn't who they worship, is wrong and what got me is that they were told they were being disrespectful.
State Shariah ban moves up judicial ladder
1/13/2011 Arguments pending before 10th Circuit on validity of voters' decision.
A constitutional scholar who graduated cum laude from Harvard Law and later taught at the University of Oklahoma and Oral Roberts University says a federal judge got it backwards when she wrote an opinion that Oklahoma voters would not be allowed to ban the use of Shariah law in their courts.
That opinion came from Chief Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, who before Christmas blocked the state from certifying a constitutional amendment approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters through a ballot initiative known as State Question 755.
A Muslim activist had contended in court that he would be injured by having his religious law banned from use in the courts, and Miles-LaGrange agreed, writing that plaintiff Muneer Awad "has shown that he will suffer an injury in fact, specifically, an invasion of his First Amendment rights."
The judge's order prevented state officials from certifying the election results on that issue, and it now is being appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, where a decision is not expected probably until mid-summer.
State Shariah ban moves up judicial ladder
Texas legislator moves to stop Shariah
January 2011 Targets constitutional abuses from Islam, immigration, presidential impostors.
A Texas legislator has proposed a state constitutional amendment that would effectively bar courts in the Lone Star State from considering Islamic, or Shariah, law in deciding cases.
Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, earlier this month submitted House Joint Resolution No. 57, which would amend the Texas Constitution to read, "A court of this state shall uphold the laws of the Constitution of the United States, this Constitution, federal laws and laws of this state. A court of this state may not enforce, consider or apply any religious or cultural law."
Berman has been a controversial figure in Texas, repeatedly filing bills on today's hottest constitutional controversies:
* For example, Berman filed a bill that would nullify the national health-care legislation commonly called Obamacare in Texas as an unconstitutional overreach of federal authority;
* He filed a bill that would require candidates for president or vice president to show their birth certificates to the secretary of state before being allowed on the ballot;
* And he filed a bill asking his state to reconsider the constitutionality of allowing illegal immigrants to pay reduced, in-state tuition at public colleges and universities.
Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned Berman's latest bill, as well as similar measures in other states that would ban Shariah law from American courts. Hooper claims the constitutional amendment is an attack on the religious freedom of Muslims.
"What we are seeing is those that are trying to enact laws targeting the American Muslim community's constitutional rights realize they are not going to pass legal muster," Hooper told The American Independent. "So they are finding backdoor, roundabout ways to accomplish the same thing."
Thomas Kidd, a senior fellow at the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, also criticized Berman's bill, calling its language an "ill-conceived" attempt to block Shariah in the U.S.
"In the end, this amendment implies that religion and culture cannot influence our law as Texans. The problem is that religion and culture inform all law," Kidd writes in a Houston Chronicle editorial. "Texans overwhelmingly approved a ban on same-sex marriage in 2005 – would anyone deny that much of the support for this amendment emerged from religious conviction? Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater."
Berman, however, says American courts need to recognize they are bound by constitutional law alone, and not subject to the whims of men or multiculturalism.
"A lot of federal courts are referring to international courts and laws of other countries. We want to make sure our courts are not doing this, especially in regards to cultural laws," Berman told The American Independent. "If that includes Shariah law, then so be it."
Rep. Sandy Adams (FL24) introduced legislation that “protects the integrity of our Constitution and U.S. laws by clarifying that our courts should follow and uphold our laws – not defer to those of foreign nations.”
Ironically, less than a week prior to Rep. Adams introducing her bill, a Florida judge imposed Sharia Law in a Tampa courtroom, perhaps the best indication yet of just how important such legislation is to this country.
ISAF: Bringing Islamic Law... to U.S. Troops
March 24, 2011
I wasn't even looking for this. I just went to the ISAF website to see whether the grossly underreported weekend murders of two American soldiers (and shootings of four others) by an Afghan security contractor -- again -- was considered newsy enough to post by the official powers that be. "The slayings bring to nine the number of U.S. soldiers who have been killed by rogue Afghan security force members, whether uniformed or private security contractors, in the past two months," NBC reports.
Nine? In the last two months? That whizzed by totally unaccounted for. Did any democratically elected officials even think to ask Gen. Petraeus about it?
I still don't know if ISAF tallied up these latest bodies in a public count. That's because the first item to present itself to a viewer of the ISAF site is this picture (below) with the caption: "Religious Importance of the Qur'an." As a well-known sucker for the religious importance of the "Qur'an" -- I prefer "Ko-ran," with Texas inflection -- I just had to click and see.
The caption tells us so-and-so holds his prayers beads during a March 2010 ribbon-cutting ceremony on an electrification project in the Farah Distriction, quoting Mr. So-and-So as saying: "If we have electricity ... we can turn on our lights, and read the Koran.”
What comment is appropriate here? "The jaw drops"? "The universe spins"? We must go beyond shock to assess the advanced state of psycho-masochism the US military has now attained under the suicidal ideology of COIN, a belief system of unparralleled arrogance that actually believes that a cockamamie scheme of sticks and carrots, at a staggering cost of blood (limbs, skull shards) and unrecoverable treasure, is adequate to remake Muslim Man in Petraeus's Image.
But the joke is on the COINsters. For what is happening is that it is they who are remaking themselves. In seeking to win Islamic hearts and minds, a lynchpin of the non-military, social-work basis of the COIN strategy, they have themselves become de facto followers of Islamic law, and they are spreading it to our troops.
This is the ISAF site tells us. To wit:
"Download Religious Importance of the Qu'ran" the ISAF commands.
So I did. Up pops COIN Advisory # 20100924-001 (I'm not kidding).This perfectly rancid sop to "Cultural Sensitivity" (the non-ironic title) is something for US troops to gag themselves with. Literally. "Never talk badly about the Qur'an or its contents." #2 "recommendation" says, a no-nonsense formulation of Islamic prohibitions against criticising Islam.
Remember, this COIN Advisory is attached to the very first item ISAF displays, hoisted like a flag of dhimmitude to denote ISAF's adoption of Islamic law (sharia), illustrated with a year-old picture of Mr. Prayer Beads exulting over having received the technology of Thomas Alva Edison to read the Koran.
But if illuminating the Koran is perfectly okay for infidels to do, touching the thing is not. Why? "It is considered culturally insensitive for any non-Muslim to touch a copy of the Qur'an," ISAF explains. Why that it is indeed the Islamic case, ISAF doesn't mention. Perhaps it would upset still-not-completely dhimmified troops to learn that this injunction exists because Muslims consider non-Muslim "najis," or unclean, and thus unfit to touch their religious book. We must appreciate the implications: Having accepted this basic supremacist divide, ISAF has also accepted dhimmitude, the cultural condition of all non-Muslim subjects of sharia, and it is imposing it on our troops.
Of course, there's more:
Additionally, verbal disrespect for Islam and/or the Qur'an us considered as inappropriate as physical desecration of the Qur'an. Insulting the Qur'an is an act of blasphemy.
The way Islam treats women stinks = verbal disrespect for Islam. The verses of the Qur'an that call for jihad against infidels are heinous = insulting the Qur'an. Tut, tut: ISAF, veritable mouthpiece of the coming caliphate, deems such talk "inappropriate" and "blasphemy" -- which just might win them an extra pillow at the foot of the caliph's throne.
Muslims believe they have an inherest duty to stand up to injustices committed against Islam and the Qur'an. Therefore, they take any perceived disrespect to Islam and/or the Qur'an extremely seriously....
Therefore, so does ISAF, which recommends:
1. Do NOT handle Qur'ans or other Islamic relgious items. (CAPS in the original.)
2. Never talk badly about the Qur'an or its contents.
3. If you must search a location or person's belongings, ask them if they have a Qur'an or religious item present. If so, ask them to remove it or put it in a suitable place before conducting the search.
4. Your level of sensitivity must be even greater when conducting canine searches. [Dogs are also "najis."] Having an animal anywhere near a Qur''an or other religious artifact is considered highly disrespectful.
5. If you have questions about the Qur'an or Islam, ask respectfully.
6. Be informed and be prepared to answer questions about alleged desecration of the Qur'an.
TN's anti-sharia debate heats up
March 3, 2011 OneNewsNow
A radical Islamic group is pressuring Tennessee lawmakers to drop legislation aimed at keeping sharia law out of The Volunteer State.
According to The Tennessean, the anti-sharia initiative has been introduced in the Senate by State Senator Bill Ketron, and in the Assembly by State Representative Judd Matheny. The twin bills are aimed at providing a powerful counter-terrorism tool to state and local law enforcement by allowing for civil and/or criminal penalties against anyone providing material support or resources to terrorist organizations.
But recently the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a front group for the terrorist organization Hamas, held a news conference attempting to use scare tactics to convince the legislators to drop the bill.
LET's TALK REAL HORROR - SHARIA LAW
March 25, 2011 While Obama plays fast and lose trying to deal with his upset liberal base and congress about going to war with Libya, real abuses, violations and murders are happening all over Muslim countries. What will Obama do about those? I imagine, he will continue to ignore them like everyone else does. I am talking about abuses, human rights violations and murders that affect hundreds of millions of Muslim women through out the Middle East on a daily basis because of the use of the evil and racist Sharia law.
Just a few of the millions of rights violations regularly include: Get your puke bag ready. Remember Hena, the 14 year old girl who went out side her home at night to relieve herself in Bangladesh and was raped. She was sentenced to 100 lashes. She fell unconscious and died after 80. You guessed it…. Sharia law.
Then there was a 16 year old raped by a 20 year old at her village. She was ashamed and scared so she didn’t report it. Her plan didn’t work because she became pregnant and was exposed. She was sentenced to 101 lashes. This was carried out 8 months after her rape…..another gift of Sharia Law. This very same district reported 3 other cases who were lashed for illegal intercourse.
The blessings of Sharia continue. A 45 year old woman was whipped 40 times for having intercourse with her stepson. The local imam decided this punishment which killed her. Then there was the 17 year old who was accused of having an affair. She was tortured by the village arbitration council until she confessed. Naturally after that she was whipped 101 times.
The gift that keeps on giving as we talk about the rights of freedom fighters in Libya.
These encounters regarding rape and sex go on daily all over Muslim countries. We haven’t even talked about the regular beatings that occur, sanctioned by the imams and the Koran. Sharia not only is hateful and violates Muslim women, but calls for the execution of gays, execution of those who convert to another faith, cutting off of limbs and more. It is beyond brutal, discriminatory, evil and makes the rules of the Nazi party look mellow. Where are the REAL freedom fighters and leaders who will stand against this evil and for women?
Democrats where are you? Hillary Clinton, NOW, ACLU and other women’s rights groups are simply AWOL. Obama, Republican leaders, media, anyone??? Where was Bush on this? AWOL.
I have screamed about these abuses for years on my radio show and in my articles. It is high time our leadership and someone in the White House screams about this. No one has the right to just pick little pockets of human rights problems while ignoring millions of Muslim women in a rape infested, Sharia sea of horror.
The goal of terrorism is Sharia law
April 15, 2011 Dick Morris believes many judges today want to legitimize sharia law and make it an element of Western jurisprudence.
Morris told attendees of the Pacific Justice Institute's recent annual gala in Anaheim, California, that sharia law is a monumental threat to the United States government, noting that many judges in America are ruling in favor of it.
He argues that it is dangerous to include Islamic sharia law in Western jurisprudence. "It is not that the sharia law is a method of helping terrorism," he stated. "The goal of international terrorism is the imposition of sharia law."
The former White House advisor explains that most major financial institutions in the world -- such as AIG, Morgan Stanley, and Citibank -- have a sharia-compliance fund where individuals can have their investments go directly to sharia-vetted activities. Under a sharia-compliance fund, he explains, a Muslim must give 2.5 percent of their total net worth annually -- and the funds are directed by sharia-compliance boards that choose where the money goes.
"And those funds are run by sharia-compliance boards, which consist of the most horrible Islamic imam extremists you can imagine," he added. "Five or six of them have been bounced off the boards because they went on terror watch lists."
Morris suggests that the funds are a "huge financing arm of Hamas and Hezbollah and other terrorist groups."
Immigration's results? Islam usurping national laws
Study shows Shariah actually replacing nation's secular standards
October 13, 2011 Hundreds of thousands of Muslims who have moved into France are rejecting the nation's values so efficiently that in practicality Shariah religious law is replacing civil law in some regions, according to a startling new report that perhaps is throwing a shadow across what America's future might hold.
The report was published in French, but has been analyzed and evaluated by a number of organizations and individuals, including Soeren Kern, a senior fellow for transatlantic relations at Madrid's Strategic Studies Group.
At Hudson New York, a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy organization dedicated to research and analysis that promotes global security and freedom in human rights, Kern said the 2,200-page report closes with the warning that "France's future depends on its ability to re-integrate the suburbs into the national project."
The study focused on two suburbs in northeastern Paris, Clichy-sous-Bois and Montfermeil. They were the focal points for Muslim riots several years ago and have one of the highest concentrations of Muslims in France, Kern noted.
The locations are similar to several areas in the United States, such as some suburbs of Detroit, where Muslims easily overwhelm every other identified group as the majority.
In Dearborn, for example, an annual Arab Fest is held at which Christians have been arrested simply for talking about their faith among other members of the Muslim-oriented community.
That's not the only hot spot in America. In Oklahoma City, a court case alleges a Christian police officer was disciplined for refusing to attend religious events at a local Muslim mosque on the orders of his commanders. And a fight has erupted over a decision by a Muslim school principal to fire a Christian wrestling coach after a student wrestler converted from Islam to Christianity.
At JihadWatch in the United States, a commentary explained the study found "the fruits of the contradictory notion that letting an immigrant population have everything it wants of the society it left … will actually aid integration."
"Rather, it only allows the construction of replicas of their former societies, importing all of the dysfunction that actually encouraged them to emigrate in the first place and letting it fester anew in closed micro-states."
At Middle East Online, Thibauld Malterre said that Muslims have taken to installing their religious society even though the French secular society has reached out.
But he said, " The report does not support the idea that the state has simply pulled back, to be replaced by Islam. The Clichy-Monfermeil agglomeration has been at the center of one of France's biggest urban renewal programs."
In the U.S., Delta Air Lines has agreed to work with Saudi Arabia's national airline, which imposes Islamic law on passengers – inside the U.S.
Facilitating the advance of Shariah is "the free press of the West [which] has accepted and enforced Islamic limits on expression by voluntarily censoring" political cartoons.
Startlingly, the Dutch who, until recently welcomed and tolerated Islam and Shariah, have suddenly called a halt. They now are working on plans to require immigrants to learn the Dutch language, culture and legal system.
Immigration's results? Islam usurping national laws http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=354913#ixzz1aiqhaKYa
Use of Islamic law has been accepted in a civil case, a judge has ruled
Oct. 25, 2011
A state appeals court has ruled that a Hillsborough County Circuit judge can consider Islamic law to decide a civil case between a mosque and its former trustees.
The decision by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Lakeland to decline the appeal of the Islamic Education Center of Tampa sends the case back to Hillsborough County Circuit Judge Richard A. Nielsen. Nielsen's decision in March to allow the case to proceed under "ecclesiastical Islamic law" drew national attention when the ruling was criticized by conservative bloggers.
The case has its roots in 2002, when the mosque ousted four of its founding members; those founding members later sued the mosque. One of the main issues of dispute was who would be responsible for how to spend $2.5 million Florida's Turnpike Enterprise had paid the mosque for 3.4 acres needed to widen Veterans Expressway.
When he made his March ruling, Nielsen said courts have ruled "that ecclesiastical law controls certain relations between members of a religious organization, whether a church, synagogue, temple or mosque."
The uproar over the ruling went overboard, said Lee Segal, a Clearwater attorney representing the ousted trustees. He said the ruling follows established legal precedent and does not mean Nielsen is allowing Islamic law to trump U.S. law.
"When the parties agree (before the trial that) they are bound to Islamic law, they can be bound to Islamic law," Segal said. "As long as what you are agreeing to doesn't violate the constitution of the United States, you can apply any type of law."
Though the issue of Islamic law has garnered attention, the legal fight over the lawsuit is complicated, with much of it revolving around the arbitration process.
On Monday, Paul Thanasides, the attorney for the mosque, filed a new motion to dismiss the case because of lack of jurisdiction.
Saudi Arabia Study Claims Letting Women Drive Will Lead to Homosexuality, Lack of Virgins
12/5/11 Researchers in Saudi Arabia released a study last week claiming that lifting the driving ban for women in the country would “provoke a surge in prostitution, p0rnography, homosexuality and divorce,” as well as cause the nation to have “no more virgins," prompting observers to question the seriousness of the study.
Scholars at the Majlis al-Ifta' al-A'ala, Saudi Arabia's highest religious council, collaborated on the report with Kamal Subhi, a former professor at the conservative King Fahd University.
Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world where women are banned from driving, even though King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud gave women the right to vote late September.
Earlier this year, Saudi clerics issued a fatwa against challenging the royal family's authority by women drivers. The ban is not actually a part of civic law, but of Sharia, or Islamic, law, according to local media. Many clerics claimed at the time that the driving ban would prevent "vice by stopping women interacting with male strangers – despite the enforced proximity with a hired driver," according to the Guardian.
In June, some 40 female activist decided to test the ban not only by publicly and ostentatiously driving around town, but by filming themselves while at it and posting the videos on social media networks. Many of the videos went viral, ultimately leading to a number of arrests.
The filming and social media campaign was part of the “My Right, My Dignity” protest, which aimed to attract attention to the major human rights violation that the ban represents.
Islamic world targets First Amendment
Dec. 17, 2011 Muslim group tells Clinton: Defamation of Islam must be prevented - in America!
As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomes Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu to Washington this week, it is critical that Americans pay attention to what these two leaders intend to do. From 12 to 14 December 2011, working teams from the Department of State (DoS) and the OIC are going to discuss implementation mechanisms that could impose limits on freedom of speech and expression.
The OIC's purpose, as stated explicitly in its April 2011 4th Annual Report on Islamophobia, is to criminalize "incitement to hatred and violence on religious grounds." Incitement is to be defined by applying the "test of consequences" to speech. Under this twisted perversion of falsely "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater," it doesn’t matter what someone actually says — or even whether it is true or not; if someone else commits violence and says it's because of something that person said, the speaker will be held criminally liable.
U.N. Adopts Sharia-like Religious Intolerance Resolution Championed by Obama
Dec. 23, 2011 (CNSNews.com) – The U.N. General Assembly on Monday adopted a resolution condemning the stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of people based on their religion, and urging countries to take effective steps “to address and combat such incidents.”
No member state called for a recorded vote on the text, which was as a result adopted “by consensus.”
The resolution, an initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), is based on one passed by the U.N.’s Human Rights Council in Geneva last spring. The State Department last week hosted a meeting to discuss ways of “implementing” it.
Every year since 1999 the OIC has steered through the U.N.’s human rights apparatus a resolution condemning the “defamation of religion,” which for the bloc of 56 Muslim states covered incidents ranging from satirizing Mohammed in a newspaper cartoon to criticism of shari’a and post-9/11 security check profiling.
Oklahoma can't enforce Sharia law ban
January 10, 2012 A federal appeals court upheld an injunction against a voter-approved ban on Islamic law in Oklahoma on Tuesday, saying it likely violated the U.S. Constitution by discriminating against religion.
A three-member panel of the Denver-based U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the rights of plaintiff Muneer Awad, a Muslim man living in Oklahoma City, likely would be violated if the ban on Sharia law takes effect.
The decision upholds the ruling of a lower federal court.
"While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out ... the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual's constitutional rights," the appeals court said in a 37-page written decision.
The Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations welcomed the ruling, calling it "a victory for the Constitution and for the right of all Americans to freely practice their faith."
Oklahoma's "Save Our State Amendment," which was approved by 70 percent of state voters in 2010, bars Oklahoma state courts from considering or using Sharia law.
The lawsuit challenging the measure was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Awad, who is director of the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR.
A federal judge in Oklahoma City issued a court order in November 2010 barring the measure from taking effect while the case is under review, finding a substantial likelihood that Awad would prevail on the merits.
The Council said the Oklahoma amendment is among 20 similar proposed laws introduced in state legislatures nationwide.
Defenders of the amendment say they want to prevent foreign laws in general, and Islamic Sharia law in particular, from overriding state or U.S. laws.
But foes of the Oklahoma measure, also called State Question 755, have argued that it stigmatizes Islam and its adherents and violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment prohibition against the government favoring one religion over another.
**WRONG! Sharia Law does FAVOR Islam OVER other religions, now THAT is unconstitutional!
State Senator Anthony Sykes, one of the measure's sponsors, called the decision an attempt "to silence the voice of 70 percent of Oklahoma voters.
At some point we have to decide whether this is a country of, by and for the judges, or of, by and for the people."
Opponents also say it could nullify wills or legal contracts between Muslims because they incorporate by reference specific elements of Islamic prophetic traditions.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum