Against the backdrop of the ten-year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a heightened interest in the role of Islam in American society and the subsequent clash of civilizations remains. Specifically, public concern continues to grow across the country about the use of Sharia Law, or Islamic Law, within American courts. As a result, well over a dozen state legislatures have introduced or passed legislation that prohibits or limits the use of Sharia Law or foreign law in state courts. These bills have taken two distinct forms: Sharia-specific and facially-neutral bills. Regardless of classification, these legislative efforts have triggered a number of constitutional concerns, with critics arguing that the bills violate the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Critics argue that the laws have a sectarian purpose and an effect of advancing one religion at the expense of another and thus fail the Supreme Court’s jurisprudential test. Moreover, these critics argue that the laws burden the practice of religious faith. Indeed, this debate has undeniably opened a Pandora’s Box of constitutional concerns. Meanwhile, the bills’ proponents vigorously reject the accusation that the bills are hostile to Muslims or religious freedoms. They argue that the bills are designed to proactively safeguard the secular constitutional role of government by prohibiting religious influence, specifically that of Sharia Law.
Dr. Joel C. Hunter, senior pastor of 15,000 evangelical Christians at Northland Church, partners with Atif Fareed, Former CAIR Florida Chair to oppose anti-Sharia bill in Florida Legislature.
Perhaps you can educate Dr. Hunter with facts regarding Islam, Jihad, Islamists, CAIR, Sharia and Taqiyya.
Dr. Joel C. Hunter, senior pastor of the Northland Church in Longwood, Florida, asked Atif Fareed, former Chairman of CAIR Florida, to read Hunter’s statement opposing SB 58 Application of Foreign Laws in Certain Cases to the Florida Senate Committee on Governmental Oversight and Accountability on March 21, 2013.
Atif Fareed told the committee:
But I want to read something very important to you today. I am a Muslim, but a senior pastor of an evangelical church, the Northland Church, Dr. Joel C. Hunter, he sent me an email yesterday afternoon and he wanted me to read this to you. And this is how his letter goes exactly word by word:
“To my state senators: As a pastor of one of the largest churches in Florida I believe Senate Bill 58 will do more harm than good if enacted. Its effect will be to increase bias rather than protection. It seems to me to be a cure without a disease. Existing law and judicial precedent have proved sufficient to deal with any concerns addressed by this proposed law. Having confidence in both our constitution and the character of our judicial process I agree with the America Bar Association, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Civil Liberties Union that this law and House Bill 351 will be detrimental rather than the good intended. As a conservative evangelical Christian it is unusual for me to side with the ACLU but I think objecting to unnecessary law is a conservative principle as well as a libertarian one. In deed not making laws unless they are absolutely necessary is at the core of our character as a country. Thank you for considering my views. Dr. Joel C. Hunter, Senior Pastor Northland Church distributed.
To see the video recording of Atif Fareed’s presentation to the Senate Committee click here and advance the video to the 68 minute mark.
“I could not wait until the committee meeting was over to inquire if Joel Hunter actually authorized or requested Atif Fareed to present this statement to Florida Senators.” Notes David Caton, Florida Family Association President. “I sent the below email to Joel Hunter to which he affirmed Yes in less than five minutes. He must be really proud to align with the Council on American Islamic Relations.”
From: “david caton”
To: “joel hunter” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 11:26:05 AM
Subject: Statement presented to Florida Senate
A gentleman just presented a statement allegedly authored by Dr. Joel Hunter condemning SB 58 Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases. Did Dr. Joel Hunter write and authorize this statement?
From: “Joel Hunter” <email@example.com>
To: “david caton”
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 11:30:10 AM
Subject: Re: Statement presented to Florida Senate
Sent from my iPhone
Hunter claims he is a “conservative evangelical Christian…” yet:
- The Northland Church web site gives this bio of Hunter: “Dr. Hunter served in the inaugural year on the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which advised President Barack Obama on substantive policy issues, …. He continues as a spiritual advisor to the President.”
- Dr. Joel Hunter prayed during the 2008 Democratic National Convention where Barack Hussein Obama was nominated to run for president. Click here to see his prayer on Youtube.com
Here is some background on Atif Fareed, the spokesman who Dr. Hunter selected to give a speech in support of the Council on American Islamic Relations political agenda:
- Chairman of the American Muslim Community Centers, Inc.
- Former Chairman of CAIR Florida, Inc.
- Fareed participated in a rally to defend the Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian, on the opening day of Al-Arian’s trial in Tampa. (Islam Online, ‘Arian Trial Case of Freedom of Speech: Lawyer,’ June 7, 2005)
- Prior to getting involved with CAIR, Fareed was a representative for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), an Islamist political lobby group that has, in the past, defended Hezbollah and has called for Israel’s destruction. (Zionist Organization of America, ‘ZOA: White House Was Wrong To Send Representative To Convention Of ProTerrorist, Anti-American Group,’ December 23, 2003)
- “Ariel Sharon is a warmonger and only the United States can stop him.” (statement by Atif Fareed, International Herald Tribune, ‘U.S. support for Israel,’ LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, April 24, 2002)
- Fareed, a pilot for Southwest Airlines, has admitted to being questioned by the FBI for nearly three hours, asked if any Arabs approached him for flying lessons and if he would submit to a lie detector test. (Los Angeles Times, Muslims: Private Moments in the Public Eye,’ August 12, 2004
- “On September 10, I was a good guy. I became a bad guy on September 11.” (Los Angeles Times, ‘Vegas Muslims: Faith and Vice Under a Neon Sky,’ August 12, 2004)
- “It took skill to fly sophisticated planes nearly 500 mph into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.” (stated by Atif Fareed, Las Vegas Weekly, ‘The reality-propaganda gap: Mainstream media slammed for whitewashed news,’ November 1, 2001)
The scriptures proclaim “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob…” Exodus 3:15 God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers–the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob–has sent me to you.’ “This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation. Matthew 22:31-32 have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. The scriptures do not proclaim “the God of Abraham, the God of Ishmael, the God of Muhammad.” God help Americans to learn the truth.
Sadly, Dr. Joel C. Hunter is helping the Hamas linked, Jihadi apologist, Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) to stop laws from being enacted that would prohibit courts from accepting Sharia law.
If you have educational information that you would like to share with Dr. Joel C. Hunter regarding Islam, Jihad, Islamists, CAIR, Sharia and Taqiyya; Dr. Hunter’s email address is firstname.lastname@example.org
At issue is the Michigan state legislature’s House Bill No. 4769, which looks likely to pass in coming days. Quite simply, that bill states that no foreign law may take precedence over American law or Michigan state law in a Michigan court room.
The key provision of the bill is Section 2, which says:
“A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.”
That’s it. Seems pretty straightforward and entirely in keeping with Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
“This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”
So why would CAIR call on its members to oppose legislation that protects all American citizens, upholds the U.S. Constitution and in no way interferes with the right of any individual to freely exercise his or her religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment?
CAIR (a Muslim Brotherhood front group) points to the answer in its own words. Its Action Alert decries “discrimination on followers of a minority faith” and terms the legislation “anti-Islam,” even though there is no mention of Islam or any other faith in the bill.
There’s also no mention of any specific foreign law, just the general proviso that if ever there is a conflict between any foreign law – be it French law, Islamic law, Japanese law, Zambian law or any other – and U.S. and/or Michigan state law, it is the American law and the Michigan law that will prevail.
So, then, in what way is such legislation “anti-Islam”?
It would seem that CAIR is saying that Islam is not just a religion, but actually a legal system (hint: it’s called “sharia.”) This is quite forthcoming of them, because in fact, of course, Islam is not merely about diet/fasting, devotion, prayer, worship, pilgrimage, and proselytizing (Da’wa), which are completely 100% protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. No, as CAIR is rightly pointing out, Islam is also a “complete way of life,” encompassing a legal, military, political, and social system. The name of that “complete way of life” is sharia (Islamic law), which governs every aspect of a Muslim’s life and actually forbids a separation between faith and governance. It is unlawful under sharia for a devout, practicing Muslim to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.”
The CAIR Action Alert against Michigan’s pending legislation perhaps unintentionally illustrates this in a most instructive way. The reason the Muslim Brotherhood and all other sharia-adherent Muslims cannot accept that sharia provisions that conflict with U.S. law be superseded by Constitutional law in American courts is precisely the notion that Islamic law must dominate all other laws on earth in every respect.
Of course, this sort of legal supremacism is not only in direct contravention of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution; if acted upon, it arguably also could be grounds for a charge of sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, or misprision of sedition.
Read more at Radical Islam
Republican convention delegates voted last week to adopt a platform plank, cautioning against the use of foreign law in U.S. courts. While jurists such as Supreme Court Justice Scalia have said that “foreign legal materials can never be relevant to an interpretation of the meaning of the U.S. Constitution,” and Justice Thomas has written that the Court should not “impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans,” other jurists have searched foreign legal sources to locate “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”
This GOP platform provision, however, represents something beyond concern over the practice of buttressing sketchy legal reasoning with extra-American sources; the GOP statement also objects to Sharia law or any other foreign legal code that threatens to creep into judicial decisions disguised as validated ethnic customs. As suggested, this admonition would apply when claims in a legal dispute are based upon cultural codes with deficient individual and civil right protections compared to American constitutional standards.
The publicized New Jersey spousal abuse case first raised widespread alarm when a trial court judge refused to issue a restraining order against a husband despite the established record of domestic violence and assault (reversed on appeal). The judge ruled that the husband did not demonstrate sufficient legal criminal intent in light of an imam’s testimony that wives are required to comply with husbands’ sexual demands. The man’s wife, known in the opinion as S.D., was 17 on the day of her wedding and did not know the bridegroom before the marriage ceremony in Morocco.
Another case that presented the Sharia terms of a foreign marriage in an American court is that of Joohi Hosain. When Joohi left her marriage (under strict Sharia rules, wives are not generally allowed to sue for divorce), her husband in Pakistan sued for custody of their daughter, Joohi fled to America on a student visa with her daughter, and eventually presented her custody case in U.S. courts after her by-then-ex-husband pursued her to Maryland. Although Joohi explained that making an appearance in a Pakistani court would likely result in accusations of adultery and the possible punishment of whipping or stoning, the Maryland appellate court determined that even so, the mother had the notice and opportunity to be heard and was thus afforded proper due process. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals then deferred to the Pakistani ruling that it was in the best interest of the child for the father to have primary custody.
About half of the cases involving Sharia family customs which have been presented for adjudication by American judges involve marriages solemnized in other countries, but many Islamic domestic marriages are also based on Sharia norms. These domestic unions present unique challenges: they often begin with disregard for the state law regarding the registration of officiants and the licensing of marriages. Even worse is the disregard for due process and informed contract formation when marriages and property distributions are arranged without the bride’s participation.
After a review of both foreign and domestic Islamic marriages, I recently presented a survey to the Federalist Society that considered both published and unpublished family court cases that adjudicated Sharia terms. To date, about 25 U.S. family law cases reflect the U.S. approval of the Sharia-based marital terms in the family court or the court of appeal.
Read more at Radical Islam
Karen Lugo is the Founder of the Libertas-West Project and a co-director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.
The Republican National Convention adopted an amendment in the spirit of American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation to their platform
- Setting the Record Straight on American Laws for American Courts Legislation (counterjihadreport.com)
- GOP Platform Addresses Sharia Encroachment (counterjihadreport.com)
- FAQ for State Legislators On American Laws for American Courts (counterjihadreport.com)
Reports (at “Live” wire , repeated at Salon) are quoting Kansas Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach to the effect that the GOP platform has adopted an amendment which addresses Sharia encroachment. Kobach stated,
We see it from the top where the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly quoted foreign law in interpreting our U.S. constitution and it’s actually coming in at the bottom as well, it’s being raised as an argument in courts around the country. We actually put a provision affecting Kansas statute this year and I think it’s important for us to say foreign sources of law should not be used as part of common law decisions or statutory interpretations by judges in the lower state courts as well.
…I’m not aware of any court that’s accepted the argument, but in cases involving either spousal abuse or assault or other crimes against persons, sometimes defenses are raised that are based in Sharia law
Despite the predictable sneering and distressing ignorance which frames these reports by two agitprop “journalists,” and Kobach’s own noble, if incomplete assessment of the profundity of the problem, this is very welcome news.
Kobach referred to Kansas’s recently passed law-a version of American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation-which should remind us all that the earliest of these laws (now also passed in Tennessee, Arizona, and Louisiana) have been in effect for several years without being challenged, let alone overturned. David Yerushalmi recently provided a very clear, didactic example of the need for ALAC-style laws, which corrects Kobach’s assessment about courts not having accepted Sharia-based arguments.
Yersuhlami described in brief an appellate court decision from Maryland, cited in a Center for Security Policy Study, where
…the court enforced a Pakistani Sharia court’s judgment of custody in favor of the father even though the mother had argued that she was not provided due process because had she gone to Pakistan to contest the case, she could have been subject to capital punishment for having a new relationship with a man not sanctioned by sharia.
The salient facts of the case, and appellate court ruling, were summarized by Yerushalmi as follows:
The Maryland appellate court ruled that since the woman could not prove she’d be executed had she gone to Pakistan to litigate custody in the Pakistan Sharia Court, which is a national-state court in Pakistan, her failure to go to Pakistan and take the risk of execution precluded her from making the void as against public policy argument. ALAC would have provided the Maryland appellate court the legislative clarity to have reversed the lower court’s outrageous decision.
Here are the Maryland appellate court’s own words, cited by Yerushalmi:
Additionally, appellant [the mother] asserts that the Pakistani custody orders were founded on principles of law repugnant to Maryland public policy because the Pakistani courts allegedly “penalized the mother for not appearing without considering the affect of her admission to adultery on her ability to return to Pakistan.” In this regard, appellant points out that if convicted under Pakistani criminal law, her penalty could be public whipping or death by stoning. Although Dr. Malik [the expert] opined that appellant would be arrested for adultery if she returned to Pakistan for the custody proceedings, he also conceded that punishment for adultery was extremely unlikely and that proving the crime was extremely difficult. Given this testimony, the circuit court was not clearly erroneous in not considering the effect of whether appellant’s admission to adultery [under sharia] was “repugnant” to Maryland public policy in its failure to find that the Pakistani courts punished her for not appearing.”}
Let me summarize for the (hope against hope) edification of the “Live” wire , and Salon, agitprop journalists, the liberty-crushing, dehumanizing nature of Sharia: open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western liberties-including freedom of conscience and speech-enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption.
I would also point out how the two agitpropjournalists steadfastly ignore: ominous polling data from US Muslims; jihad funding trial revelations and the content of more banal Muslim litigation proceedings; mosque surveillance reports; analyses of Islamic education institutions and their Muslim schoolchildren’s textbooks; the issuance of obscurantist “fatwas” (Islamic legal rulings) by the respected, mainstream Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America; and an open declaration by one of America’s largest mainstream Muslim organizations, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), in its 2010 ICNA Member’s Hand Book, which calls for the (re-)creation of a global Muslim Caliphate, and the imposition of Sharia in America.
Notwithstanding the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America’s (AMJA’s) mainstream acceptance, including uncritical endorsement of its seventh annual American conference in Houston (October 15-18, 2010) to train American imams, AMJA has issued rulings which sanction the killing of apostates (here), “blasphemers” (including non-Muslims guilty of this “crime”; here), or adulterers (by stoning to death, here), and condone marital rape. Even more ominously, another Arabic-language fatwa from AMJA’s Dr. Salah Al-Sawy leaves open the possibility for offensive jihad against America and the West, as soon as Muslims are strong enough to do so. When asked whether “the Islamic missionary effort in the West … [was] to the point where it could take advantage of offensive jihad,” Al-Sawy ruled:
The Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time. With our current capabilities, we are aspiring toward defensive jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence at this stage. But there is a different discussion for each situation. Allah Almighty knows best.
Just six months ago (3/14/12), Translating Jihad put what one might wish to deem as these circumscribed, “purely Islamic” rulings, in a more disturbing-and entirely unacceptable, seditious context. AMJA’s own words make plain the organization’s long term commitment to superseding the US legal code with its antithesis, a Sharia-based system.
Read more at American Thinker
AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi is featured in a PBS report entitled “Shariah Controversy,” which highlights “the debate over banning U.S. courts from considering Islamic law in their decision-making.” As you know, Yerushalmi is the principal author of the American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) model legislation, which was enacted into law by several states and is pending in many others. This legislation, crafted especially for states, is an effort to insulate state courts from the growing tendency to embrace constitutionally offensive foreign laws, including sharia.
Surprisingly, the PBS report is relatively balanced; but it includes an interesting quip from Rabbi David Saperstein, director and chief legal counsel for the leftwing Union for Reform Judaism’s Religious Action Center. Saperstein also delivered an invocation at the 2008 Democratic National Convention shortly before Barack Obama accepted the nomination as the Democrat presidential candidate. In the report, Saperstein claims that the efforts to enact ALAC legislation is “un-American at the deepest and most profound level.”
David Saperstein is very much like the ubiquitous reform rabbi who speaks as though he is giving a sermon and his sermons always sound like a diatribe from a humanist. Words like “un-American”, “deep”, “profound” are sure to be in tow. From an orthodox perspective, one must ask a “reform” Jew, “What about what you claim to be Jewish is in fact Jewish? Where in the world is the source for this nonsense that all peoples and cultures are of equal merit?” All of Judaism is about discerning between the holy and the profane. By reducing everything to the holy one has reduced everything to the profane.
Superficially articulate spokesmen like Saperstein rely upon the inability or unwillingness of most of their fellow travelers to think past three levels of argument. This allows the following syllogism:
- Only science, as in mathematical physics, provides Man with certain knowledge.
- No man/woman can know any absolute truth other than the certainty of science.
- All moral, political, and philosophical judgments (i.e., Reason, ethics, morality) are outside of mathematical physics; therefore, they are absolutely unknowable. They are mere beliefs; fully exchangeable opinion. No basis to distinguish a Judeo-Christian moral truth or political order from any other.
As Loewenberg has pointed out, based in part on the works of Klein, Voegelin, and Strauss, this is the destruction of Western thought or what has been understood as the natural tension between Reason (Athens) and Revelation (Jerusalem) in Western Philosophy.
Once you’ve arrived here, there are only two bases for political order. We have come to this understanding — the Founders did — from Hobbes and Locke. If all but science (not science as in theory but as in mathesis universalis) is but meaningless and fully interchangeable opinion (A=B, B=C, … X=X1, therefore on any given day, A=X1), a political society seeking to choose the right political order may be “required” to agree that A=T or tyranny in its active phase. That is, if there is no basis for truth, and there is only personal “taste” or unprovable opinion, the way for society to agree on order is by one opinion being enforced through power.
The other approach to political order is through “procedure” or “process”. This has been AFLC Advisory Board Member and bestselling author Andrew C. McCarthy’s contribution to the contemporary discussion. Because there can be no truth, there can only be valid elections or “due process”. Thus, a “fair” election is one where you vote and merely count the votes accurately. The result on that day at that place becomes the truth for that time and that place. But, that truth is entirely relative and temporal and there is no basis to invest it with any lasting constitutional claim of truth.
Thus, the living constitution of the progressives, the Progressive Truth of Time-History-Progress itself, this then is the only transcendence available to man. If that rings of Hegel, there is a reason for that.
It follows, then, that there can be no moral truth or superiority to a Judeo-Christian value of the individual over the collective because there can be no truth other than progress. This “progress” is what “Rabbi” Saperstein means when he refers to what is “American” at the “most profound level”. For the Progressive, ”profundity” is the deep truth that there is no truth.
Now, we see the perfect storm — or opportunity — for the Left to join the sharia faithful in their destruction of the Judeo-Christian West. For the Progressive, the hatred of a Judeo-Christian moral or political truth is of necessity the last barrier to the syllogism noted above. For the Sharia-Muslim faithful, Judaism simply and Christianity in political society operate to literally deny the truth of the Koran and the “Law”. As long as the value and the integrity of the individual reigns supreme over the collectiveUmma, the Ulema will not be able to argue that A=T, as in the tyranny of sharia.
It is this anti-philosophic “goal” of the destruction of Western philosophy which so neatly allies Progressives and the Sharia Faithful. Their allied raison d’etre is the destruction of Western political order based upon the Judeo-Christian tension between Reason and Revelation, where both give way but neither concedes nor demands a totalitarian dominance in matters political. And, at the core of this tension and recognition (i.e., “tolerance” proper) between Reason and Revelation is the respect we accord the individual over the collective.
The reason American Laws for American Courts legislation is needed is because in most states there is no statute that articulates public policy on the issue of foreign laws in state courts. Up to now, judges have been left to “make law” in these cases. It is the proper role of the legislative branch to set public policy in such cases, which is what American Laws for American Courts has now accomplished in Kansas.
By Rep. Peggy Mast
Recently my American Laws for American Courts legislation that Governor Brownback signed into law in May has come under unfounded criticism and fraudulent attacks from poorly researched articles that have contained numerous inaccuracies.
Critics have mischaracterized the law we passed in Kansas to protect the individual constitutional rights of our citizens against foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines to such an extent that I am left wondering whether these critics have actually read the law they have been attacking.
In particular, some incorrectly tie our new American Laws for American Courts law in Kansas to the infamous and counterproductive anti-Shariah constitutional amendment passed in Oklahoma back in 2010, which has been struck down in federal court.
My bill was closely modeled on the model “American Laws for American Courts” legislation promoted by the American Public Policy Alliance (APPA) (http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?page_id=38).
Unlike the Oklahoma amendment, this legislation has never been challenged in court since being signed into law more than two years ago in Louisiana and Tennessee and is, as APPA legal scholar Stephen Gele says, “perfectly constitutional.”
For instance, Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman’s research was so sloppy that he completely mischaracterized American Laws for American Courts as forbidding “courts from applying Islamic Shariah law in any case.”
This is simply wrong.
Other critics have also stated that American Laws for American Courts prohibits state courts from basing decisions on any foreign laws or other legal codes.
Once again, this is simply wrong.
One of the particular critics of ALAC lists as one of his accomplishments: “obtaining the dismissal of a lawsuit filed in the US in favor of a parallel proceeding in Germany.” He was actually fighting on behalf of foreign jurisdiction when the foreign jurisdiction would not guarantee US constitutional rights. How objective is that?
It is true that American Laws for American Courts was crafted to protect Americans’ constitutional rights against the infiltration of foreign law. As such it is NOT a blanket ban on any foreign law or foreign legal doctrine, including Shariah.
American Laws for American Courts protects Americans from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law would result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of the state or of the United States, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of the state.
There is no mention of Shariah in the legislation simply because the legislation was not designed to target Shariah.
So why are Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as HAMAS-tied CAIR and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) so vehemently opposed to American Laws for American Courts?
Because they know that out of all the foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines that have shown up in US court cases, legal systems based on Shariah are the ones which most commonly run afoul of US constitutional rights. Now that states are taking action to prevent these occurrences, pro-Shariah forces are howling mad.
But they can’t challenge American Laws for American Courts in court because all the law does is reinforce US constitutional rights. What could be unconstitutional about that?
This brings us to another point that the critics have failed to uncover: Shariah law can and has appeared in court cases in the United States-and has even been upheld by activist judges in US state courts in clear violation of individual constitutional rights.
Last year, the Center for Security Policy conducted a preliminary survey of state court cases in which one or both parties to a dispute attempted to invoke Shariah law. The Center published the results in a study entitled Shariah Law and American State Courts.
The study details 50 sample cases in which parties invoked Shariah, including 15 trial court cases and 12 appellate court cases in which Shariah was actually applied. Importantly, frequently, Shariah manifested itself not as Shariah, but as Pakistani law, Saudi law, Egyptian law or some other foreign law that is based on Shariah.
Read more: Family Security Matters
Representative Peggy Mast is a Republican member of the Kansas House of Representatives, representing the 76th district. She has served since 1997 and is currently the Assistant Majority Leader.
- Kansas House Unanimously Passes Anti-Sharia Bill
- American Laws for American Courts Wins Major Bipartisan Victory in Kansas Legislature
- ‘It’s Perfectly Constitutional’: Kansas Governor Signs Bill Blocking Islamic Law in Courts and Government Agencies
- CAIR’s Sharia Fog Machine
- FAQ for State Legislators On American Laws for American Courts
Kansas bill protecting fundamental constitutional rights from foreign laws goes to governor’s desk following bi-partisan legislative victory
- ALAC passed with broad bipartisan support in Kansas, just as it did previously in Tennessee, Louisiana and Arizona. The APPA has previously stated that their goal is to extend ALAC’s constitutional protections to all 50 states by 2020.
- ALAC was also passed by overwhelming margins in state Houses in Florida, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, and Missouri, the Indiana Senate, and the Judiciary Committees of Florida, Georgia and Alabama, only to be scuttled in last-minute interventions by special interests acting against the wishes of the vast majority of voters and legislators.
- The following statistics demonstrate the strong and growing support by majorities of legislators for ALAC across the United States:
- Louisiana Senate Vote: 33-3
- Louisiana House Vote: 94-0
- Tennessee House Vote: 96-0
- Tennessee Senate Vote: 32-0
- Oklahoma House Vote: 76-3
- Indiana Senate Vote: 50-0
- Missouri House of Representatives Vote: 110-46
- Florida House Vote: 92-24
- Florida House Civil Justice Subcommittee: 13-0
- Florida House Judiciary Committee: 14-1
- Florida Senate Judiciary Committee: 6-0
- Alabama Senate Judiciary Committee: 9-0
- Georgia House Judiciary Committee: 7-2
- CAIR asks Kansas Governor Not To Sign Anti-Sharia Bill (Vinienco.com)
- Muslim group CAIR urges Kansas governor to allow sharia law (creeping sharia)