Shariah Must-Reads

CAIR Tips Hand; Sues OK Over Anti-Sharia Law


CAIR Tips Hand; Sues OK over Anti-Sharia Law
November 3, 2010

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, 11/3/2010) -- On Thursday, November 4, the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-OK) will hold a news conference with religious and civil rights leaders in the State Capitol Building to announce the filing of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of an anti-Islam ballot measure (State Question 755) passed in yesterday's election. The measure amends the state constitution to forbid judges from considering Islamic law or international law when making a ruling. Robert Spencer's Jihadwatch put it,Oklahoma bans stonings, amputations for theft, death for apostates, Muslims cry 'Islamophobia.'

CAIR is like the ACLU that it claims to emulate, at least in some ways. Both groups push radical agendas while posturing as protectors of the persecuted. CAIR is a master at tapping into and manipulating the guilty multiculturalism that infects a lot of newsrooms and government agencies in order to get the coverage or policy changes it seeks.

Muslim Brotherhood Front Group Trains Airport Screeners

The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) trained 2,200 Transportation Safety Officers (TSOs) how to handle the Koran and Muslims dressed in religious garb. Maher Hathout founded MPAC and is currently a senior advisor. As noted in the Center for Security Policy's Team B II report entitled "Sharia: The Threat to America", "Maher Hathout has publicly voiced his approval of Designated Terrorist Organizations such as Hezbollah; decried many U.S. counterterrorism efforts; called for the destruction of Israel; and, openly supported known terrorists such as Hasan al Turabi, the leader of the National Islamic Front of Sudan. Yet, the organization he founded, MPAC, enjoys a reputation in official U.S. circles as a 'moderate' Muslim organization."

Human Events
December 6, 2010
By: Connie Hair

The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has completed training for 2,200 Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) at the Los Angeles International Airport according to a press release found on the MPAC website.

The MPAC release notes that the two-month training course informed officers of "the diversity of Muslims around the world from cultural dress to language to tenets. The four trainers taught the TSOs how to properly handle a Quran and discussed the different ways Muslim women and men choose to cover or dress. For example, the TSOs learned if a woman wears hijab and needs a secondary screening she should be screened in a private area by a female TSO officer."


4 Rebuttals to Critics of Oklahoma's Anti-Sharia Law

NewsReal Blog
December 3, 2010
By David Yerushalmi

Criticism of the Oklahoma constitutional amendment (Question 755), which prohibits state courts from “considering or using” international law or sharia, was expected. Interestingly, though, the specific critiques have not been well considered.

We begin with a concession. There is no dispute that Question 755 was poorly drafted and, as such, criticism directed at the legal professionals who had a hand in the drafting is entirely legitimate. For example, there are perfectly legitimate applications of foreign law in state courts that no one in their right mind would oppose. Two parties who agree to be bound by the law of a foreign jurisdiction when those foreign laws do not infringe upon any fundamental liberty or important public policy of the state of Oklahoma is as innocuous and conducive to the “freedom to contract” and the liberty inherent in private property as it sounds.

Further, because the term “sharia” comes with no real description, it is hard to know exactly how the courts will ultimately interpret this term. Does ‘sharia’ mean some vague or subjective interpretation of religious practice as the current federal court challenge intimates or is it the sharia that occupies the place of secular law and political-military doctrine at the level of normative praxis in many countries, in a variety of political and military regimes, and as the guiding threat doctrine for terrorist organizations around the world?

Finally, it is hard to know what the drafters meant, and therefore what the voters understood, by the word “considered.” Does a court “consider a foreign law” if the parties agreed to its application with the court merely “applying” the foreign law as the mutual will of the parties?


The Law as Weapon

Human Events
November 16, 2010
By Robert Spencer

Islamic supremacists are at war with freedom of speech in the West: The 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference has been campaigning for years now at the United Nations to compel Western states to criminalize “religious hatred”—that is, honest discussions of how Islamic jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and to recruit peaceful Muslims to their cause. One little-noted weapon in this war is the courtroom: using libel and defamation laws as weapons to cow critics and intimidate them into silence. My courageous and indefatigable colleague Pamela Geller is the latest target.

Muslim foes of the freedom of speech have used this weapon frequently over the years. The Hamas-linked Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has sued many, and has threatened legal action against many more. In 2006 CAIR dropped a $1.35 million libel suit against Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR, who had called CAIR a “terrorist front organization,” after Whitehead’s lawyers asked probing questions about the group during the discovery process.

In another notable case, billionaire Saudi Khalid bin Mahfouz sued writer Rachel Ehrenfeld in libel-friendly Britain for writing in her book Funding Evil that he was involved in funding Hamas and al-Qaeda. Bin Mahfouz denied that he had knowingly given money to either. This case became the foundation for new laws protecting American writers from libel rulings in other countries.


De Facto Shariah Law in America

American Thinker
November 9, 2010
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.

Christianity Suppressed

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.

Page 5 of 49