Creeping Sharia

[Julian]

This topic is for chronicling the steady encroachment is islamic law into our western system of law and government.

Let the record speak for itself.

[Julian]

Look who's deciding American court cases

You knew it was coming, now it has finally arrived

Islamic law, or Shariah, already is being applied in the U.S. court system, according to an extensive new report.

A recent Center for Security Policy study called "Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases outlines dozens of cases in which the Islamic system of law has been applied.

Center spokesman David Reaboi said the Islamic strictures are being carried out mostly in cases in which foreigners are the principals.

"Shariah enters U.S. courts through the practice of comity to foreign law," Reaboi explained. "This happens, for example, when a judge decides to allow the use of say, Pakistani or Saudi family law (Shariah) in a dispute between Pakistanis or Saudis."

He said the study only scratches the surface of Shariah's presence in the nation.

"For every case in this sample drawn from published appellate legal cases, there are innumerable cases at the trial level that remain unnoticed except by the participants," the study said. "Thus, this report is a only a sample of possible cases – a 'tip of the iceberg' – of legal cases involving Shariah in local, state and federal courts."

Among the cases cited was one from New Jersey in which a wife sought a restraining order against her husband because of spousal abuse.

"S.D. (wife) and M.J.R. (husband) were both Muslims and citizens of Morocco and both resided in New Jersey. After only three months of marriage, husband began physically abusing wife. The physical abuse administered by husband injured wife's entire body including her breasts and pubic area," the report said. "Additionally, husband forced himself on wife and had non-consensual sex with her on multiple occasions. Husband stated to wife that Islam allowed him to have sex with her at any time he wished. Wife asked the trial court to grant a restraining order against husband shortly after he verbally divorced her in front of their imam," the report said.

"The trial court refused to issue a final restraining order against husband finding that, although husband had harassed and assaulted wife, husband believed it was his religious right to have non-consensual sex with his wife and that belief precluded any criminal intent on the part of husband," according to the report.

"The New Jersey appellate court reversed the trial court and ordered that the trial court enter a final restraining order against husband. The New Jersey appellate court stated that the trial court erroneously allowed the husband's religious beliefs to excuse him from New Jersey’s criminal code and that husband knowingly engaged in non-consensual sex with wife," the report said.

The report also presents details of 19 more "top cases" and a summary of 50 cases from 23 states that have used Shariah as the basis for court decisions.

American Center for Law and Justice Shariah expert Shaheryar Gill said in the prominent New Jersey case, "the judge actually looked at Shariah law to decide."

Gill says an ACLJ book, "Shariah Law: Radical Islam's Threat to the U.S. Constitution," discusses the problem.

"In the case of 'S.D. v. M.J.R,' the New Jersey appellate court rightly refused to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of a Muslim man who physically, verbally, and sexually abused his wife in accordance with Shariah," the ACLJ book says.

The study emphasizes that family law is only part of the complete Shariah picture. It concludes that since Islamic religious law moves further than American constitutional law on a range of subjects, Shariah is incompatible with U.S. precedents.

"Institutionalized, authoritative Shariah is comprehensive and by definition without limit in its ambitions and scope, and it also includes legally mandated, recommended, permitted, discouraged and prohibited practices that are strongly biased and discriminatory against women, homosexuals and non-Muslims," the study said.

"Shariah law provides a legal framework for violence up to and including legalized murder against apostates (people who have left Islam), homosexuals, blasphemers and especially women accused of various crimes," the study said.

"Just this year in 2011, in Pakistan's Shariah legal system, both apostates and blasphemers have been imprisoned and faced execution. Shariah criminal punishments are extreme, including amputations and lashings for numerous crimes," the study reported.

WND reported in January about the high profile blasphemy case of Pakistani Christian woman Asia Bibi, who received the death penalty for blasphemy, simply for sharing the Gospel with her Muslim coworkers.

WND also reported in June that former terrorist Kamal Saleem agreed that one of the methods of carrying out jihad is through the courts.

"What they're trying to do is fake cases for Islam and these cases are done purposefully. We take an imam, there are two of them. They were fighting against each other and the fight was over a mosque," Saleem said. "That is so devious and it is part of the culture of Islamic invasion. These two imams are fighting over a mosque in Florida. Each imam says it belongs to me.

"One says I built it and I raised the funds. The other one says the Wahhabi government put me over here and they're the ones who sent the money. Both of them are right," Saleem continued.

"They went to the Supreme Court in Florida. What happened is that they said this was a Muslim matter and you need to judge us by Islamic Shariah law or you will not understand how these things work," he said.

Gill said there are other recent cases that demonstrate the level to which Shariah has infiltrated the court system.

"There are different types of cases in which you see that Shariah or Islamic law is applied or is required to be applied, or looked at," Gill said.

"For example, indirectly, there are cases in which foreign judgments are brought into the United States and enforced here," he said.

One such case according to the ACLJ's booklet is the case of 'Farah v. Farah,' heard in Virginia.

In that case, a Virginia trial judge recognized the validity of a Muslim marriage that was conducted through a proxy in England."

"The trial judge ruled that the marriage, which was solemnized in England (though no certificate of marriage was issued by any English authority) and its ceremony completed in Pakistan, must be honored in Virginia because 'the law of the state of Pakistan sanctions marriages performed under the personal law of the parties which in this case was Moslem law,'" the ACLJ book reported.

The book pointed out that the Virginia court, "correctly recognized, however, that Pakistan's recognition of Shariah 'does not control the issue of the validity of the marriage under Virginia law.' Instead, the court applied Virginia law, which only granted comity according to the principles of the location celebrating the marriage, which was England."

There is also the California case of "Malak v. Malak," which involved a Lebanese court decision.

"The court determined, however, that the Lebanese order was enforceable because even though the Lebanese court had not explicitly applied the 'best interests of the child' standard, its decision aligned with California's 'best interests of the child' standard," the ACLJ book said.

An Emory University Law School publication noted that the "Malak" case was cited as precedent in other Muslim child custody cases.

Atlas Shrugs publisher and Islam analyst Pamela Geller says that Islamic law cited as the basis for any American court decision shows that the American legal system is turning a dangerous corner.

"It is setting a very dangerous precedent. Shariah law and U.S. law conflict in numerous ways, including on issues of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for women. Allowing Shariah to be a determining factor in U.S. courtrooms threatens those rights for all of us," Geller said.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=360081

[Julian]

Appeals court won't stop judge from considering Islamic law

To decide key issue in lawsuit involving Florida mosque

TAMPA — A Florida appeals court appears to have cleared the way for a Hillsborough judge to use Islamic law to decide a key issue in a lawsuit involving a local mosque.

In a case that has attracted national attention, the 2nd District Court of Appeal on Friday denied without comment a petition to prevent Judge Richard Nielsen from invoking Islamic law.

The petition, filed by the Islamic Education Center of Tampa, contested a March ruling by Nielsen announcing his intent to use "ecclesiastical Islamic law" in the case.

Nielsen limited his use of Islamic law to deciding whether arbitration by an Islamic scholar mediating a dispute between the mosque and ousted trustees followed the teachings of the Koran.

The arbitration itself is in dispute, with mosque officials saying it never took place.

The arbitrator ruled in favor of several men ousted as mosque trustees, a decision that, if upheld, could wrest control of $2.2 million in mosque coffers.

Like everything else in the litigation, the meaning of the appeals court ruling is in dispute.

Attorney Paul Thanasides, representing the mosque, said an appeals court decision without a written opinion means the court wasn't addressing the merits of the case.

Thanasides said the U.S. Constitution and Florida law prevent Nielsen from following Islamic law. On Monday, he filed a motion with the judge asking him to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

"Florida law is clear that courts may not decide corporate governance disputes involving religious organizations," the motion said.

Lee Segal, a lawyer representing four ousted trustees, said the appeals court ruling was a "big-time" win for his clients and vindication for Nielsen, who does not comment on pending cases.

"This basically puts the case back in front of Nielsen, who has a good handle of what the issues are," Segal said.

He noted the judge could still rule against his clients if he determines that Islamic law was not, in fact, followed.

"There's still lots of barriers for us to cross," Segal said.

The case touched off a storm of criticism against Nielsen earlier this year.

Web commentators have misidentified the judge as a liberal trying to subvert U.S. law. Nielsen is, in fact, a conservative Republican appointed to the bench by former Gov. Jeb Bush.

At the time of Nielsen's original decision, the political atmosphere was already charged with debate that Islamic law had gained a toehold in U.S. courts.

Even before Nielsen's ruling, two Florida lawmakers, Sen. Alan Hays and Rep. Larry Metz, announced legislation to prevent the use of any foreign legal code being applied in state courts.

The legislation was not adopted by Florida lawmakers.

In May, the Center for Security Policy released a study that evaluated 50 appellate court cases in 23 states involving issues related to Islamic law.

The study noted Islamic law has been "formally recognized" in state courts.

The cases involved mostly Muslim women and children "who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process," said the center's president, Frank J. Gaffney Jr.

"When our courts then apply sharia law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded," he said.

To others, Nielsen's decision has been widely misunderstood. Markus Wagner, a professor of international law at the University of Miami School of Law, said courts often refer to religious codes in arbitration cases.

If two sides in an arbitration, for example, agree to use Jewish law, then a judge could properly use the Talmud in deciding a case, Wagner said.

"On the legal side, it's just not all that unusual," he said.

William R. Levesque can be reached at levesque@sptimes.com.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civ ... aw/1198321

[smallLliberal]

"The trial judge ruled that the marriage, which was solemnized in England (though no certificate of marriage was issued by any English authority) and its ceremony completed in Pakistan, must be honored in Virginia because 'the law of the state of Pakistan sanctions marriages performed under the personal law of the parties which in this case was Moslem law,'" the ACLJ book reported.

isn't that the case with all marriages ... if they occur in a different country?

[Julian]

"The trial judge ruled that the marriage, which was solemnized in England (though no certificate of marriage was issued by any English authority) and its ceremony completed in Pakistan, must be honored in Virginia because 'the law of the state of Pakistan sanctions marriages performed under the personal law of the parties which in this case was Moslem law,'" the ACLJ book reported.

isn't that the case with all marriages ... if they occur in a different country?

You tell me.

[Julian]

When abdullah moves here with his twenty two wives, six of whom are 16 years old, do the marriages fall under moon cult law or Canadian/American law?

[Julian]

1ST AMENDMENT UNDER FIRE

Again! Americans gagged from talking about this

Major U.S. hotel quakes in fear, cancels event on sizzling topic

For the second time in less than a week, a major U.S. hotel has canceled an agreement to host an event on radical Islam's threat to America's freedoms, due to threatening messages to management.

The Preserving Freedom Conference, scheduled for Nov. 11 at the top-rated Hutton Hotel in Nashville, Tenn., features Robert Spencer, author of 10 books about Islam and director of Jihad Watch, and Pamela Geller, a WND columnist, editor of the blog Atlas Shrugs and author of the book "Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance." WND is a co-sponsor of the conference.

Stephen Eckley, senior vice president of hotels for Amerimar Enterprises in Denver – the Hutton Hotel's managing corporation, told WND it was his decision to cancel the event.

Eckley said he "wasn't exactly sure what the content of the program was," but he explained that he canceled it because of the threat of physical harm to people at the hotel.

"They were veiled threats that there were going to be protests that could easily erupt into violence," he told WND in a telephone interview.

Sessions planned for the conference include "The European Experience" with Shariah, "Religious Persecution Under Shariah," "The Dehumanization and Diminishment of Women in the West Under Shariah," "The Muslim Brotherhood In America" and "Fighting Islamist Propaganda in the Media."

Spencer and Geller are co-founders of the activist group Stop Islamization of America, which helped lead opposition to the so-called Ground Zero mosque in New York City.

(Story continues below)

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=359849

[Julian]

Yet another anti-Shariah conference threatened Breaking News

Ex-Dem lawmaker leads charge, calling former Reagan, FBI officials 'racists'


The venues for two events presenting the advancement of Islamic law in the U.S. and the Western world already have backed out in just the past week, and now a conference in Maryland faces cancellation if a former Democratic state lawmaker and the many Islamic advocacy groups that support him have their way.

Saqib Ali, a former member of the Maryland state legislature, has published an open letter charging that the speakers for a conference to be hosted by the Maryland Conservative Action on Saturday in Annapolis, Md., include "the nation's leading Islamophobes," the Daily Caller reported.

Ali's letter, which also criticized Republican lawmakers who have agreed to address the conference, has been officially endorsed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Islamic Society of Annapolis, CASA de Maryland and Equality Maryland, a group that promotes same-sex marriage.

"Unfortunately, instead of inviting legitimate conservative speakers, MDCAN has instead chosen speakers who are well-known conspiracy theorists, McCarthyites, racists and anti-Muslim fanatics," Ali wrote, according to the Daily Caller.

much more: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=360333

[Julian]

obamed's "justice dept" (the criminal enterprise Holder president's over) is once again subverting the USA and helping obamed's islamic brothers.

The Justice Department's war on the truth


Exclusive: Pamela Geller reveals feds' removal of all anti-jihad training material

The U.S. Department of Justice is becoming a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Obama administration is bowing to Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups and stopping the use of all training materials for law enforcement and national security officials that refer to jihad and any and all references to Islam. Yet Anwar al-Awlaki was a devout imam who preached the Quran. So let me understand this: Obama executed Awlaki for preaching jihad. That was all he did. Awlaki did not kill anyone. And yet Obama orders law enforcement to drop all mention of jihad and the Islamic motivation of terrorists. What's the difference?

Why did he kill Awlaki?

The Justice Department held a seminar last week on "Confronting Discrimination in the Post 9-11 Era." Among the treacherous conspirators indoctrinating believers and non-believers was the notorious Jew-hating pollster James Zogby and the ghastly leader of the Muslim Brotherhood-tied Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Mohammed Magid.

James Lafferty, a board member of my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), was there and reported: "Speaker after speaker recited anecdote after anecdote which demonstrated that, except for the Justice Department, law enforcement is conspiring with 'bigoted' Americans to suspend the First Amendment protections of religious expression and free speech."

The DOJ promised to fight that "bigotry" by changing training materials designed to help law enforcement officials understand the jihad threat. Dwight Holton, the U.S. attorney in Oregon, said: "I want to be perfectly clear about this: Training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency toward violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated."

The only ones really responsible for the idea that Islam is "a religion of violence or with a tendency toward violence" are the Muslims who act violently and justify their violence by quoting the Quran. That isn't "bigotry." It's the truth.

This comes fresh on the heels of my recent WND column, "Obama's Department of Shariah," describing how the DOJ is actively pursing cases to gain special privileges for Muslims. In case after case, the Department of Justice's pursuit of the Shariah is surpassed only by that of the Supreme Council of Al-Azhar, the most prestigious institution in Sunni Islam.

How can Obama enforce the blasphemy laws of the Shariah (do not criticize, offend or speak truthfully about Islam) and order the killing of Imam Awlaki? Think about that.

Banning study of the religious motivation of Muslim terrorists has been a cornerstone of this national-security policy throughout the Obama administration, but Obama orders the executions of those who are proselytizing for and advancing what they present as pure Islam, authentic Islam.

What is this policy? Perhaps Obama prefers the stealth jihad, and the violent jihad only calls attention to the true nature of Islamic law. Incoherent is a best-case scenario explanation on this, but I do not believe that. In my book "The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War On America," I give the details of his pro-Islam leanings from the beginning of his career. And now as president, on foreign policy, he has aided and abetted the overthrow of secular governments. Libya, like Tunisia and Egypt, is heading toward becoming an Islamic state. His anti-Israel policies have led to the increased isolation of the tiny Jewish state, making it a ripe target for Islamic imperialists and devout Muslims.

more: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=360237

[smallLliberal]

"The trial judge ruled that the marriage, which was solemnized in England (though no certificate of marriage was issued by any English authority) and its ceremony completed in Pakistan, must be honored in Virginia because 'the law of the state of Pakistan sanctions marriages performed under the personal law of the parties which in this case was Moslem law,'" the ACLJ book reported.

isn't that the case with all marriages ... if they occur in a different country?

You tell me.

Ya, I think so. If you get married in another country then move here. I am sure we recognize the marriage as legit. Why would we not? People go down to the Carribean all the time and get married too. I remember seeing a Canadian couple on a beach in Cuba in wedding clothes. I would think that was legally recoginized when they returned.

So as usual with WMD, much ado about very little.

[GreyBowel]

There are already legal systems in North America based on Old Testament law. The main character in the Koran is Moses, followed closely by Abraham.

Hutterites and the Amish already pretty much police themselves using laws based on the Ten Commandments and Abrahamic values.

[drummer]

There are already legal systems in North America based on Old Testament law. The main character in the Koran is Moses, followed closely by Abraham.

Hutterites and the Amish already pretty much police themselves using laws based on the Ten Commandments and Abrahamic values.

I am sure that does not extend to criminal law or any ruling in violation of Canadian and American laws. If Islamic law is only applied to private business and arbitration, with the possibility of the courts overturning the arbitration, this won't be the issue. But in the examples posted on this thread, it seems some judges also want to take Islamic law into consideration in deciding their cases, which should not be allowed.

When Ontario was mulling the possibility of allowing sharia-based arbitration, it was actually the secular muslim groups who protested and forced the government to change the law.

[styky]

Judge Rules American Courts Can Use Sharia Law

http://video.foxnews.com/v/124211005300 ... t_id=87485

[Julian]

Multicultural Extremists


by Peder Jensen, a.k.a. Fjordman

Being critical of Islam or multiculturalism isn’t right-wing extremism, writes Peder Jensen. Also known as Fjordman.

Fjordman: “It is my opinion, supporters of non-European mass immigration are extremists, not the opponents of this,” writes Peder Jensen.

Dagbladet’s Marie Simonsen has repeatedly attacked me in this newspaper’s columns, most recently on 25 October. She writes that the author “ seems unable to participate in a public debate, where he would meet resistance .” Okay.

I hereby challenge her to show how many places in the world with large Muslim populations have shown the ability to live peacefully with their non-Muslim neighbors over a long period of time. I will respond with an article.

Being critical of Islam or multiculturalism isn’t right-wing extremism. Popular resistance against Islamization is now beginning to spread far into the traditional left. Thilo Sarrazin, for example, is a member of the SPD, the Social Democratic Party of Germany and thus a sister party of the Norwegian Labour Party, and even to those who were at Utøya.

But let’s not talk about such things; it will make it much harder for outlets, including Dagbladet, to demonize people they do not like, and it would be sad.

In my opinion, supporters of non-European mass immigration are the extremists, not the opponents of it. Is it not extreme to displace the native population in many parts of Europe, as is happening now?

An ideology can hardly be more radical than to deprive the indigenous population of its homeland across an entire continent, and then suppress all opposition to this policy.

Marie Simonsen wrote in the spring of 2007 that it should be considered a universal human right for all people around the world to move wherever they want to.

Considering that the world’s population is expected to increase by billions of people over the next decades, and that the population growth in just a single country, Pakistan, is sufficient to crush a tiny country like Norway in just a few years, one is forced to conclude that Simonsen doesn’t like the continuing existence of the Norwegians as a people.

Since hardly anyone in mainstream media contradicted her at the time, as far as I know, one must assume that this view is widespread in the press corps. If that is the case, we have a problem.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/ ... .html#more

[Julian]

The Fire-Bombing of Sharia Hebdo



Charia HebdoThe French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo announced a few days ago that this week’s edition would be renamed Charia Hebdo (“Sharia Hebdo”) in honor of the “Arab Spring”. The prophet Mohammed was to be the guest editor for the week, and a cartoon of him was featured on the cover. Mohammed’s speech balloon says: “100 lashes if you don't die of laughter!”

For articles about the advance publicity for Chief Editor Mohammed, see The Telegraph and the BBC.

Early this morning, before the newspaper hit the stands, the offices of Charlie Hebdo were firebombed and gutted by persons unknown.

Here’s the report from France24: http://www.france24.com/en/20111102-fra ... aria-issue