South Carolina’s Anti-Foreign Law Bill: Constitutional and Necessary
New study determines Islamic sharia law is utilized in courtrooms across the country – in violation of constitutional rights.
The South Carolina state legislature is considering a bill that would bar foreign laws – such as Islamic sharia law – from conflicting with U.S. and state laws. Opponents of the legislation claimed that such a bill is unnecessary as sharia law would never be used in violation of American laws and argued that such a law would be unconstitutional. They are wrong on both counts.
In a previous article at The US Report, we exposed attempts to label the bill unconstitutional as obfuscation. After all, how can a bill that clearly states that it will protect “constitutionally guaranteed” rights be unconstitutional?
Senate Bill 444 reads (emphasis mine):
A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States.
It does not preclude Muslims from all sharia activities – such as praying – as the bill’s opponents want us to believe, it simply prevents sharia from overriding constitutionally-guaranteed rights when the legal systems conflict.
Now, a new study released by the Center for Security Policy, a non-partisan national security organization, finds that sharia law was in fact utilized in numerous states, including one relevant case in South Carolina. Research was limited to published trial and appellate court documents on the Google Scholar website, so there are undoubtedly many more cases involving sharia than those detailed in the study.
The bill’s opponents have repeatedly stated that sharia will never be applied when it conflicts with U.S. or state laws, but despite the limited availability of data, this study found over two dozen cases where judges decided cases based on sharia law – even when Islamic law conflicted with our laws.
In one case, a New Jersey judge refused to grant a restraining order after an Islamic man sexually and physically abused his wife, stating that this was permissible under Islam. The judge determined that his religious belief negated any criminal behavior.
A judge from Michigan enforced an Islamic summary divorce obtained by the husband, known as talaq, which violates the woman’s right to equal protection. The wife had no prior knowledge of the divorce, was not allowed a hearing, and did not have an attorney. Sharia law states that the wife is only entitled to property that was in her name, contrary to Michigan policy.
Many cases involve child custody in which judges will defer to foreign sharia courts, which side against women and non-Muslims, without considering the best interests of the child.
At the forefront of the anti-sharia bill’s opposition is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The Investigative Project on Terrorism reported on Wednesday that the IRS removed CAIR and the CAIR Foundation from the list of tax-exempt organizations as the groups did not file their annual finance reports.
As of this writing, CAIR’s website still claims that donations are tax-deductible, despite losing their IRS status two weeks ago.
It also bears mentioning that CAIR remains an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2010 Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial, where Muslim organizations conspired to send millions of U.S. dollars to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Members of CAIR’s leadership had been under investigation until the Justice Department scuttled their pending terror financing prosecutions.
Now that we can see that not only is this bill constitutional, but also that sharia is in fact applied in courtrooms across the country, nothing should stand in the way of the bill’s passage.
In: Articles, Society · Tagged with: Shariah law
Anti-foreign law bill will protect all S.C. citizens
Bill DOES NOT violate rights of Muslims, though Jihadists would have us believe otherwise
The South Carolina Senate is currently debating legislation that would ban the enforcement of foreign and religious laws – including Islamic sharia law – but opponents claim the bill would violate the constitutional rights of Muslims. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In April, a Judiciary subcommittee conducted two hearings (on two separate days) on Senate Bill 444, which would prevent foreign and religious law from violating an individual’s constitutional rights. A third subcommittee hearing is in the offing.
S.C.’s bill does not mention sharia law, and appears to avoid religious infringement altogether, unless the religious law would violate the rights of another: “A court, arbitrator, … or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.”
Howard Stravitz, a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law, testified at the South Carolina subcommittee hearing that the bill would violate Muslims’ freedom of religion. Stravitz did not respond to The US Report’s request for clarification.
“The backers of these discriminatory proposals realize if they put specific references to Sharia or Muslims, it won’t pass constitutional muster,” said Ibrahim Hooper, Director of Communications at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
When The US Report contacted Hooper to clarify which elements of S. 444 he considered unconstitutional, Hooper instead sent material related to Oklahoma’s attempt at banning sharia rather than South Carolina’s legislation. Senate Question 755 was approved by 70 percent of voters before being blocked by a federal judge.
It bears noting that CAIR recently made headlines when the Department of Justice scuttled pending terror-financing prosecutions against the organization and one of its co-founders. Both were listed as un-indicted co-conspirators in the trial against the Islamic charity group, Holy Land Foundation, which sent over $12 million in donations from the U.S. to the Palestinian terrorist group, Hamas. CAIR is linked to both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks to establish sharia law not only in the U.S., but worldwide.
David Yerushalmi, a lawyer and expert on Islamic law, called Oklahoma’s Senate Question 755 “poorly drafted” as sharia was left open for vague interpretation. Yerushalmi wrote that “There are patently constitutional ways to legislatively preclude sharia from raising its ugly head in our legal system and to do so in clearer, more legally precise ways than was achieved by Question 755.”
It appears that the stumbling block is to what degree each state defines foreign laws: a federal judge blocked Oklahoma’s ban when a plaintiff from CAIR contended that by blocking sharia in state courtrooms, Muslims’ were essentially denied their freedom of religion as the plaintiff defined sharia as a religious practice rather than an authoritative legal-political-military system.
Both Louisiana and Tennessee passed anti-foreign law bills in 2010 – albeit without specific reference to sharia – that have not been overturned.
The underlying problem is that many Muslims consider Islamic religious laws to be divine commandments which trump man-made laws such as the Constitution.
In 2007, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) issued a fatwa, or Islamic legal ruling stating that “Islamic law does not recognize [man-made law], either fully or in part.” While not all U.S. Muslims may agree with the supremacy of sharia, the fact remains that a Muslim legal organization within the United States commanding Muslims to follow sharia and not federal and state laws.
The AMJA has issued other rulings which call for the execution for apostasy and blasphemy, as well as condone marital rape, female genital mutilation, and the stoning of adulterers.
How could a law preventing an individual from violating the rights of another be unconstitutional? No one seems to have a substantive answer. Instead of answering the question, the bill’s opponents continue to put forth strawmen like “the bill would adversely impact international trade,” which it would not in any way shape or form.
Moreover, according to our sources, when questions by the opponents were fully and adequately answered by the bill’s proponents during the hearings, the answers were ignored and the same questions were repeated by the bill’s opponents later in the hearings.
Perhaps the focus should be shifted from legislation that aims to protect constitutional rights to the imported legal system that undermines constitutional rights.
In a sane world, advocating for the undermining of our Constitution would be called sedition.
[Originally published at The US Report]
In: Articles, Politics, Religion · Tagged with: Shariah law
Islamist rally calling for Sharia law in U.S. must go forward
A U.S. Muslim group is planning a demonstration featuring controversial British imams who are advocating for the implementation of Sharia law in the United States. Rather than simply banning or protesting the event, it should not only be permitted, but become a prime-time television broadcast.
“The event is a rally, a call for the Sharia, a call for the Muslims to rise up and establish the Islamic state in America,” said Imam Anjem Choudary, one of the proposed speakers. The Islamic Thinker’s Society has scheduled the event for March 3 and organizers claim it will be held in front of the White House.
If the event does take place, American citizens will have the opportunity to see something that the media has largely kept hidden – that there is a segment of the American population that wants to subjugate our society under Islamic law. That is not to say that all American Muslims prefer Sharia by default – the group has to import speakers from Britain. The event itself may be appalling, but it provides Americans the perfect opportunity to learn the facts about Sharia and begin a national discussion as to whether Sharia is permissible in our society. If Americans can hear for themselves the words of those calling for an Islamic state in our country, rather than the secondhand soft-soaping we are likely to get from the New York Times or MSNBC, that will have a far greater impact.
The televised event should be accompanied by programming with an objective analysis of Sharia. This is crucial as Sharia’s advocates have a habit of telling their Muslim, Arabic-speaking audiences one thing and telling non-Muslim, English-speaking audiences another. This was clearly exposed when Anjem Choudary, the event’s main speaker, appeared on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News earlier this month, declaring that under Sharia, women who are raped or commit adultery are not stoned to death. Hannity quickly pointed out that Choudary himself said that women who commit adultery should be stoned to death. Choudary then admitted that he supported Sharia’s penal code, including stonings.
Choudary said there are “misconceptions” about Sharia, but did nothing to clear any of them up. Therefore, instead of scheduling guests who repeat the same tired talking points, we need guests who will clear up these so-called misconceptions by explaining its background, what its crimes and punishments are, and especially whether it conflicts with our Constitution. What does Islam’s foundational texts say? Are women being stoned to death in Islamic countries? Does Sharia require that all women, Muslim or not, wear the Burqa? The truth is not what Choudary says, it’s what is written and what is occurring.
Today, the focus is on the speakers and organizations. Choudary’s organization, Islam4UK, was banned in 2010 under British counterterrorism laws. Islam4UK is a spinoff of the Islamist group al Muhajiroun, which is an offshoot of Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), a group seeking to install a global Islamic caliphate. HT also seeks to destroy democracy and states that Sharia has supremacy over the Constitution in the United States. The Islamic Thinker’s Society is the U.S. counterpart of al Muhajiroun. Choudary has expressed support for Osama bin Laden, praised suicide bombers, such as the “magnificent 19” 9/11 hijackers, and has called for the execution of Pope Benedict XVII. Fellow speaker Abu Izzadeen was just released from a three-year sentence in British prison following a conviction for inciting terrorism.
While it is beneficial to know who these speakers and organizations are, we should instead be focusing on what they are advocating. If Choudary is not allowed into the country or cancels his appearance, the threat Sharia poses to American society still exists.
Choudary told Hannity that he had a “truth phobia.” The reason Sharia is still a matter of debate in this country is because our media and politicians are the ones with the truth phobia. It is time to put political correctness aside and take a hard, honest look at Sharia law. Many Americans already know much about Sharia and the threat it poses to our society, but unless we capitalize on this rally, the truth is not likely to reach those who are unaware.
In: Society · Tagged with: Shariah law
Great Muslim composers
Although our president tells us that Muslims have a rich history and have made wonderful contributions to human civilization, there is no great Muslim composer. Ever wonder why?
Because Muslim fundamentalists despise music. To Sayyid Qutb – a former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood – the purpose of life is death through jihad, not enjoying music. But it’s not just founding fathers of terrorism saying this stuff. Here’s what one Islamic legal manual has to say about those who listen to music: “On the day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.”
In: In Their Own Words · Tagged with: Islam, Shariah law
Just how evil is the Taliban?
This account is from Meena, a 13 year-old Pakistani girl who grew up around the Taliban. While you read this (and it would behoove you to read the entire piece), remember that Barack Obama seeks to pay off the same Taliban with your tax dollars.
From a BBC interview (emphasis mine):
My brother used to tell me that the place for a woman is either at home or in the grave. I was always restricted to home.
He said: “If you leave the house I’ll cut off your head and put it on your chest.”
My brother had been to the local school and beaten the girls and the teachers.
Taliban commanders used to come to our house. There was an underground bunker beside the house, with electricity.
It was concrete and very strong. Cars would drive on top but no-one would realise what was underneath. In that hideout they used to train suicide bombers.
Most were children of my age or younger than me. They were used for these activities because they were too young to know any better.
If U.S. Marines were training Afghani children to be suicide bombers, then I would join with other countries in portraying us as war criminals. But these barbarians get a pass? What kind of no-load, puss-nut asshole uses children to fight for them?
I used to see these children getting on a vehicle to go for their missions. They used loud Islamic CDs to motivate them.
And I would think, “My God, more Muslims are going to be buried”. Then the news would come that more Muslims were wiped out.
The vast majority of Taliban and al Qaeda victims are Muslims, not Westerners.
My brother used to prepare bombs and my sister-in-law did too. He told me that he would teach me this. I told him no. I would not even look at what they were doing.
My father and brother told me to carry out a suicide attack. They were pressuring me to do this.
They told me: “If you do it you will go to paradise long before us.” I replied: “Why don’t you tell me I will go to hell long before you?”
Every day they used to tell me this. Every day. I was very young when they started telling me this. I said to them: “What about all the people I will kill? They are all Muslims.”
They started beating me when I refused. They beat me non-stop. They made my life hell. I never had a single moment of happiness. They did everything other than kill me.
And if she dishonored her family by becoming pregnant (from her father and brother’s ‘punishment’), they could restore their family’s honor by killing her – nonpunishable according to Islamic Shariah law.
They said: “The bomb will be connected with a button, or something like the remote control of a TV. We will give you this kind of remote, and you will go to the place.
“We will also give you a mobile, and we will ring that phone, and press the remote, and you will be blown up with this bomb.”
They told me they would use such a large amount of explosives that no-one would even know if it was a man or a woman.
They told me that I had to do it.
There was a kind of medicine they used to give to the bombers that made them go around smiling, in a trance.
They said they would give me that medicine, and then I would go running to die – with a smile. I was so scared I decided to prepare my own tea, and my own food.
I was afraid they would mix that medicine with my food.
Sister’s story
They attached a bomb to my sister Nahida. They tied rectangular pieces to both her arms, and a black strip was wrapped around both her legs.
Then they connected the whole thing. She told my brother the bomb was heavy and she could not walk.
He said she would be comfortable once she was sitting down in the car.
They gave her medicine. But she was crying very loud for my mother. She kept going to her and hugging her. When my sister looked down at the bomb, she shivered.
Then my brother and my father started beating my mother, and they were shouting: “Why you are distracting the girl from her mission?”
I heard my sister saying: “Where is Meena? I want to see her.” But I didn’t have the strength. My heart couldn’t take it.
My mother fainted when they put her in the car. My brother said my sister’s attack was in Afghanistan.
I always think about my sister. She was healthy and a very nice girl. She was younger than me, but she was wiser. My mother used to tell me that I was an idiot, but she was very wise.
How does one put bombs on their children, and beat them for not wanting to go off to die? What kind of sick f— does something like that?
The Taliban slaughter other people’s children. They turn women into widows. They should be made to suffer too.
I want these Taliban to be burned alive.
In: Geopolitics, Religion · Tagged with: Afghanistan, Islam, Pakistan, Shariah law, Taliban
Saudi girl gets 90 lashes for having cell phone
Do our “friends” the Saudis hate little girls? It would appear so after looking at their doling out punishment for various crimes.
The country whose “police” kept 15 school girls from escaping a burning building – they burned alive because they were not wearing proper Islamic dress as they attempted to flee – now has sentenced a school girl to 90 lashes for bringing a cell phone to school.
The 13 year-old will also spend two months in jail.
Just three years ago, 16 school girls were sentenced to between 200 and 500 lashes for “being aggressive to a teacher.”
But in September, 20 Saudi miscreants received only 30 lashes for ransacking shops and restaurants.
30 lashes for criminal activity and 500 for being aggressive towards a teacher?
In: Geopolitics · Tagged with: Islam, Saudi Arabia, Shariah law
A look at the Constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan
While we are fighting al Qaeda and their associated groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would behoove us to analyze what we are leaving behind in our wake.
The constitutions of the two countries in no way represent the liberty and justice for all that our founding documents codify. D.L. Adams writes at Family Security Matters:
Article One of the constitution of Afghanistan states that “Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.” Article 2 of the constitution of Iraq states that “Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation.” Both states identify Islam as the bedrock of the state and also the law of the land.
Our troops sacrifice for our liberty and security, but apparently they are also sacrificing for the establishment of an Islamic supremacist government. Islamic states have Islamic – or Shariah – law. That’s the law where Muslims are not subject to punishment for killing non-Muslims, but Muslims are given the death penalty for leaving Islam. Criticizing Islam is also worthy of the death penalty. Rape victims are stoned while the rapists go free. Except for their reproductive qualities, women are less valuable than goats. Little girls can be taken as wives (the prophet Muhammad married Aisha at six).
Would we be spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives if we were propping up Christian regimes that had a similar legal system? I can only imagine the outcry from the progressives. So why do we do it for Islamic governments?
The bottom line is that our enemies must be defeated. But in doing so, we might reconsider how we interact with the countries that emerge from the wake of the Ba’athists in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
[Originally posted at Blackfive]
In: Religion · Tagged with: Afghanistan, Iraq, Islam, Shariah law
Retired General: Fort Hood attacker was “terrorist”
One of the nation’s most elite soldiers is not willing to pull any punches when it comes to Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan, the perpetrator of the most deadly attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.
“He’s a terrorist,” Jerry Boykin stated in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. Boykin is a retired U.S. Army three-star general, one of the original members of Delta Force, and former commander of U.S. Army Special Forces.
While that may be quite obvious to many who understand the actual definition of terrorism and the threat of jihad under Shariah law, the fact is avoided at all costs by the military, government, and media.
Gen. Boykin also placed the blame on military leadership for allowing a “jihadist” to openly serve in the armed forces, and admitted that the media is persecuting Christians.
“I think everybody in America realizes that the persecution of Christians is acceptable in our society today by both the leadership and the media, but no one wants to offend a Muslim.”
Boykin should know: while the Army allowed a jihadist to continue serving in the same branch of the military, they terminated Gen. Boykin’s career when he began making statements related to religion regarding Islam and the “War on Terror.”
In: Military, Religion · Tagged with: Christian persecution, Christianity, Delta Force, Fort Hood tragedy, Islam, Jerry Bokin, jihad, Nidal Malik Hasan, Shariah law, Special Forces
AirTran Flight 297: More than meets the eye
Doug Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network has conducted an investigation into November’s AirTran Flight 297 in which according to eyewitnesses 13 Muslim men behaved in a manner that caused the pilot to turn the plane around.
Atlanta’s WSBTV has video here.
The airline and media have told one story, and passengers have told another. It appears to me that this incident is another operation by jihadists to terrorize airline passengers and create an environment conducive to predatory lawsuits like the 2006 case of the “Flying Imams” of USAir Flight 300. USAir settled with the imams for an undisclosed amount out of court in October.
According to the witness in the video above, the pilot announced that they were returning to the gate due to the “security situation.” However, the witness said that there was no recognizable presence of law enforcement at the gate. Despite having terrorized their fellow passengers, all but two of the Muslims were allowed back on the plane. While on the flight, the remaining Muslims caused further disturbances.
After thousands and thousands of attacks by the so-called “religion of peace” since 9/11, why are we still bowing to these jihadist Muslims? The U.S. should have learned its lesson on how fatal political correctness has become after the Fort Hood massacre. While we contort ourselves and leap from conclusions, Americans die. Our legal system becomes a battleground for the jihadis. AirTran officials were willing to gamble with the lives of 70 passengers plus crew that these Muslims were bluffing. The safety and security of passengers has become secondary to protecting the airline from predatory lawsuits. We have come so far that the media and airline were willing to cover up the incident.
It’s entirely possible that AirTran will write these Muslims a check for their terrorist-like behavior. Yet an 80-year old grandmother has to stand in line to have TSA agents check her shoes for traces of explosives? All because they are Muslims and she isn’t. Aren’t we equal under the law, or is there a separate Constitution and legal system for Muslims?
There is – it’s called Shariah law. And if America doesn’t stand up to behavior like this, it will be here shortly.
In: National Security, Religion · Tagged with: AirTran Flight 297, flying imams, Fort Hood tragedy, Islam, jihad, Nidal Malik Hasan, Shariah law, USAir Flight 300
Jesus For Shariah?
Jeffrey Imm at Responsibility for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) reports that Islam4UK, a British Islamic supremacist group, has launched a PR campaign called “Jesus 4 Shariah” to promote Islamic Shariah law to UK Christians.
In this latest campaign, this group that has called for Sharia-based stonings, amputations, suppression of women, and support for Jihadist terrorists, seeks to persuade the public that Jesus would be against democracy and would be promoting Islamic Sharia law. Islam4UK plans to schedule a “debate” to prove this point at an unknown location on December 18, 2009 in the United Kingdom.
Among its points, Islam4UK asks:
- “Is the message of Jesus pro-secular democracy or pro-total implementation divine law within society?”
- “Would Jesus stand with the oppressed people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine or with the oppressive occupiers?”
But what Islam4UK conveniently leaves out is that Jesus would have no part in the vile treatment of females under Shariah, nor would he condone stonings, suicide bombings, or especially the crucifixion of Christians.
Imm has a plethora of information on Islam4UK, which is reportedly a spin-off of the banned group Al-Muhajiroun.
In: Religion · Tagged with: Al-Muhajiroun, Christianity, Islam, Islam4UK, Jesus 4 Shariah, Shariah law, UK
