America delights in Carson’s honesty on Islam


WND, by Pamela Geller, Sep. 28, 2015:

Presidential candidate Ben Carson has been the victim of a media lynching for saying he would oppose a Muslim running for president. Carson is being savaged by the media for saying, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that,” and speaking about Shariah and taqiyya. But a new poll reveals that more than half of all U.S. voters agree with him.

Also, Ben Carson is up 6 percent in the national polls since he made these remarks. (Carly Fiorina, meanwhile, rightly suffered in the polls for denouncing Carson on Jimmy Fallon’s “Tonight Show.”)

This is one of those wonderful moments when the too-cute-by-half media cynically set up a gotcha journalism moment to trip up the GOP candidates to knock them down. It’s a media art form at this point.

A Washington Post “fact checker” went so far as to serve up taqiyya about taqiyya to “refute” Carson, asking a group of dishonest leftist and Islamic supremacist academics about Carson’s statements about taqiyya.

But it didn’t work. Not this time. John Nolte wrote in Breitbart that “obviously, Kessler’s world of experts is disturbingly provincial. If a left-wing academic says it, it must be true is not fact checking.”

That wasn’t the only way the Carson firestorm backfired, and beautifully. Because, finally, we were able to have a much-needed public conversation about jihad and Shariah, subject matters verboten by the Shariah-compliant gatekeepers of the American media. But the media are still going to go after Carson like ISIS on a Christian.

The GOP is the only one of the two parties that will even discuss the 800-pound elephant in the room: jihad and Muslim terrorism. Islamic supremacists and their leftist lapdogs in the media are waging their own jihad to silence this debate, and it is critical that we push back and support candidates who dare to speak against the gravest threat to our national security.

ISIS is here: ISIS sympathizers or jihadis have held up signs in Ferguson, Missouri, outside the White House and in Chicago. There have been several Islamic State-inspired jihad plots in the U.S. already.

The lines are drawn: Which GOP will stand up against terror groups in the U.S.?

Ben Carson is right. Electing a Muslim president would be dangerous. We have seen the Islamic pattern of previously moderate Muslims becoming devout and then aiding and abetting jihad. How could we be sure a Muslim president would not do the same?

And look at Barack Obama. Why do people believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim? He claims he is a Christian, but his father and his stepfather were Muslims, and he was raised in a Muslim country. He went to an Islamic school and excelled in Quran classes while growing up in Jakarta.

Because of his upbringing, he is Islamophiliac, and his foreign and domestic policies reflect this. Obama’s advancement of Islam has been disastrous for freedom and freedom-loving peoples across the world. He has sided with jihadists in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Gaza and their counterparts in America, i.e. terror-tied CAIR.

Obama’s pro-jihad policies and his Shariah adherence (“the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”) tell us more about him than words or agitprop ever could. He rules like a Muslim leader. And the media wonder why so many people think Obama is a Muslim? Obama has banned the word “jihad” and any discussion of Islam from State, Defense and Justice Department vernacular and counter-terrorism materials.

He is denying that jihad is the enemy, while his Justice Department acts as the de facto legal arm for Muslim Brotherhood groups in America. And the Obama administration has held hundreds of meetings with U.S. Hamas front groups.

It’s not a question of “Islamophobia” or “racism,” or ignorance, for that matter. You can’t know what’s in a man’s heart, but “by their fruits ye shall know him, and so we know him.”

We must vocally and unequivocally stand by Ben Carson. This is a critical moment.

Also see:


Dr. Ben Carson, retired brain surgeon and candidate for the GOP presidential nomination.

Dr. Ben Carson, retired brain surgeon and candidate for the GOP presidential nomination.

WND, by Leo Hohmann, Sep. 24, 2015:

Is it possible for a “good Muslim” to also be a “good president” of the United States of America?

Ben Carson doesn’t think so, but the question divides the Republican Party along familiar lines – those preferring a more establishment candidate and those looking for an outsider.

While some fellow GOP candidates such as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina have criticized Carson for saying he could not support a Muslim as president, an influential Iowa congressman sees it differently.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa – whose opinions carry weight in the Iowa GOP primary – said the comments would likely help Carson in his state.

“I wouldn’t expect those remarks would hurt Dr. Carson in Iowa. I think they help him,” King told the the Washington Post. “The people on our side who pay any attention to this at all understand Shariah is incompatible with the Constitution and that a sincerely devout Muslim – I might say, a devout Islamist — cannot seriously give an oath to support the Constitution, because it’s incompatible with his faith.”

Carson himself said Wednesday the flow of donations into his campaign coffers has accelerated since his controversial comment on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday with Chuck Todd.

“I mean, the money’s been coming in so fast, it’s hard to even keep up with,” Carson said on “Fox and Friends.” “I remember the day of the last debate, within 24 hours we had raised a million dollars, and it’s coming in at least at that rate, if not quite a bit faster.”

The super PAC supporting Carson’s bid for the White House reported a surge in donations since his remarks Sunday, the Washington Times reported.

“We sent out an email to Carson supporters, and we’ve never had an email raise so much money so quickly — it’s unbelievable,” John Philip Sousa IV, who chairs the 2016 Committee super PAC, told the Times. “My phone has exploded over the last 48 hours – of people wanting me to pass on to Dr. Carson how much they respect his truthfulness and believe in the American system, and how absolutely not should anyone who believes in Shariah law come close to the White House. The people are on Dr. Carson’s side on this one – sorry, NBC, you lose.”

Carson said on “Meet the Press” that he believed Islam was inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.

NBC’s Chuck Todd asked Carson, “Do you believe Islam is consistent with the Constitution?”

“No, I do not,” Carson responded. “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

Carson dismissed criticism from his fellow Republican presidential candidates Monday in a Facebook post.

“Those Republicans that take issue with my position are amazing,” he wrote. “Under Islamic law, homosexuals – men and women alike – must be killed. Women must be subservient. And people following other religions must be killed. I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced … I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for president.”

According to a June 2015 Gallup poll, 38 percent of Americans said they could not support a Muslim for president. Only atheists (40 percent) and socialists (50 percent) fared worse in the poll.

A spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, called on Carson to withdraw from the race, saying his comments were “a disqualifier … for the nation’s highest office.”

CAIR should immediately be stripped of its nonprofit status for taking sides in the political debate, said Dr. Mark Christian, a physician and former Muslim imam who converted to Christianity and emigrated from Egypt to America.

“CAIR is all over the place speaking against Ben Carson,” Christian, founder of the Global Faith Institute in Omaha, Nebraska, told WND. “Ben Carson says he can’t support a Muslim in the White House. For those who are upset by this, please tell me which of the current Muslim leaders in the Muslim world you would elect to be president here in the great land of America?”

Christian also points out that CAIR’s history of involvement in terrorism disqualifies it as a credible source. It was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial in 2007, and more than a dozen of its leaders have either been convicted or investigated for involvement in terrorist activity.

See WND’s rogues gallery of terror-tied CAIR leaders.

The following is a rundown of what others are saying about Carson’s comments:

Read it at WND

Mohammed Goes to Washington?

1497by Mark Steyn
Hannity on Fox News
September 23, 2015

On Tuesday night I checked in with Sean Hannity on Fox News to ponder the latest strange turn of this political season – the question of whether a Muslim should be America’s president.

As the celebrate-diversity types like to drone, the US Constitution does not impose a religious test. Which is true. But the Constitution does impose a constitution test – and that would pose a serious difficulty for an honest, observant Muslim. Which is why, as I pointed out to Sean, around the world, when traditional Common Law protections rub up against Sharia, it’s Common Law that bites the dust. As President Erdogan famously put it, democracy is a train you ride until you get to the stop you want – and so it has proved.

On the Is-Obama-a-Muslim? front, Sean noted that this line was not so subtly promoted by Hillary in 2008 – although Obama has certainly done his best to live up to it, championing Sharia over the First Amendment by declaring to the United Nations in 2012 that “the future shall not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”.

Click below to watch:

Also see:


ben-carson-little-rock-AP-640x480Breitbart, by PAMELA GELLER, 20 Sep 2015:

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson is under attack for saying: “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

Candor about Islam will guarantee you the hot seat at the center of a media firestorm.

The GOP is the only one of the two parties that will even discuss the 800-pound elephant in the room: jihad and Muslim terrorism. Islamic supremacists and their leftist lapdogs in the media are waging their own jihad to silence this debate, and it is critical that we push back and support candidates who dare to speak against the gravest threat to our national security.

The enemedia is in an uproar and the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is howling for his head. CAIR is calling for his withdrawal — the terror-tied advance team is laying down the law, sharia law, making it perfectly clear that jihad terrorism and criticism of Islam is off-limits, in accordance with sharia. Interestingly enough, they cite religious freedom, something that is forbidden in Muslim countries under Islamic law.

But we (and Mr. Carson) are not talking about the religious component of Islam. Islam is not just a religion. It is a comprehensive system which deals with all aspects of human life and behavior; legal, religious, dietary, political, et al. It is political Islam that poses a threat to our national security.

Why doesn’t CAIR issue action alerts against jihad? Why hasn’t CAIR instituted programs to stop jihad recruitment? And while CAIR has made rote statements concerning the Islamic State, where are they teaching against the ideology that gave rise to it?

Right now, nothing is being done to stop jihad recruiting in US mosques, even as several hundred young Muslims from the US have gone to wage jihad for the Islamic State. What has CAIR done to stop that?

CAIR is part of the problem, not the solution.

If the moderates really reject extremism, let them show it by instituting genuine programs to teach against this view of Islam, so as to stop American Muslims from joining the Islamic State.

“ISIS is here”: ISIS sympathizers or jihadis have held up signs in Ferguson, Missouri, outside the White House, and in Chicago. There have been several Islamic State-inspired jihad plots in the US already.

The lines are drawn: which GOP will stand up against terror groups in the U.S.?

Ben Carson is right. Electing a Muslim president would be dangerous. We have seen the Islamic pattern of previously moderate Muslims becoming devout and then aiding and abetting jihad. How could we be sure a Muslim president would not do the same?

And look at Barack Obama. Why do people believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim? He claims he is a Christian, but his father and his stepfather were Muslims and he was raised in a Muslim country. He went to an Islamic school and took Qur’an classes while growing up in Jakarta.

Because of his upbringing, he is islamophiliac, and his foreign and domestic policies reflect this. Obama’s advancement of Islam has been disastrous for freedom and freedom-loving peoples across the world. He has sided with jihadists in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Gaza and their counterparts in America, i.e. terror-tied CAIR.

Obama’s pro-jihad policies and his sharia adherence (“the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”) tell us more about him than words or agitprop ever could. He rules like a Muslim leader. And the media wonders why so many people think Obama is a Muslim? Obama has banned the word “jihad” and any discussion of Islam from State, Defense, and Justice Department vernacular and counter-terrorism materials. 

He is denying that jihad is the enemy, while his Justice Department acts as the de facto legal arm for Muslim Brotherhood groups in America. And the Obama administration has held hundreds of meetings with U.S. Hamas front groups.

It’s not a question of “Islamophobia” or “racism,” or ignorance, for that matter. You can’t know what’s in a man’s heart, but “by their fruits ye shall know him, and so we know him.”

The Obama experience is the best proof of all that Ben Carson is right. The risk is too great.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.


Also see:

Sharia and the U.S. Constitution

082411_koran-constitution-lg“(Mohammed) declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Quran is, perpetual war against all who deny that (Mohammed) is the prophet of God.”
President John Quincy Adams
Son of President John Adams

By John Guandolo at his blog, Understanding the Threat, 6/20/14:
It is a historical fact that America’s first war following the Revolution was a war with the Muslim (Barbary) states. In 1786, two of America’s greatest founders, John Adams (Ambassador to England) and Thomas Jefferson (Ambassador to France) met with the emissary of Tripoli to Britain – Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja to discuss the Barbary Pirates demands for tribute from U.S. ships. After this meeting, Adams and Jefferson submitted a report to Congress detailing Adja’s answer to why the Muslims were attacking the U.S. ships without any provocation. The report reads, in part:
“The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that is was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

As we close this weeks series on Sharia and its importance in today’s world events, it must be again reiterated that everything the United States is dealing with in the current war is all about Sharia. Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic states around the world, and the doctrine of Islam itself all mandate Sharia be imposed on the entire world until there is “Peace.”

It seems fitting, then, to conclude our series on the most basic of questions: Is Sharia comparable with our Constitutional Republic in any way? The unequivocal answer is NO.

Article VI of the Constitution mandates that “…all Executive and Judicial officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

By an Act of the U.S. Congress under Title 5 Section 3331 of the U.S. Code, all elected or appointed officials shall take an oath as prescribed in that law to defend the Constitution against “all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Former Inspector General of the United States Department of Defense and Constitutional professor Joseph Schmitz has specifically highlighted three key areas where Sharia is in direct contradiction with our Constitution: Popular Sovereignty, Supremacy of the Constitution, and Freedom of Religion.

Specifically, the U.S. Constitution, in its Preamble, identifies the People as sovereign under our system. Sharia specifically states all of mankind must submit to Islam: “Sovereignty in Islam is the prerogative of Allah Almighty alone.” (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Mohammed Hashim Kalamali)

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states “This Constitution…shall be the supreme law of the land.” As was noted in an earlier UTT Blog this week, the most popular Junior High School text in American Islamic schools – What Islam is All About – states, “The law of the land is the Shari’ah of Allah.”

Finally, the U.S. Constitution guarantees all Americans the freedom to practice their faith and religion without government interference. The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” Sharia, which comes from the Quran and the example/teachings of the prophet Mohammed, states “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them and lie and wait for them in every stratagem of war” (Quran 9:5); and “But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn away from Islam, seize them and slay them wherever you find them, and take no friends or helpers from among their ranks.” (Quran 4:89) In Sharia, there is no disagreement among the scholars and 100% of authoritative Islamic Law legally puts Muslims at a higher status in the community with greater rights than those of non-Muslims, and 100% of all Islamic Law mandates that all apostates from Islam be killed.

What the Global Islamic Movement intends to do, and says it intends to do, and is killing tens of thousands of people across the globe and overthrowing countries in furtherance of, is the imposition of Sharia on the world. This is not about religious freedom for Muslims in any way. It is about a violent and organized effort to impose foreign law (Sharia) on American citizens in direct conflict of the U.S Constitution and U.S. Federal Code.

Those who have sworn an Oath to protect and defend America and our Constitution must do so against any incursion into our system by Sharia. Sharia should be viewed as a cancer inside our system – a viewpoint which was crystal clear to our Founders.

“Civilization Jihad” Comes to Court

shariah-will-dominate-AFPBreitbart, By Frank Gaffney:

Want to know what our Islamist enemies have in mind for America? Look at Europe.

Virtually every country there has found itself under siege from Muslims seeking to impose the supremacist Islamic doctrine they call shariah on everyone else. The preeminent organization promoting this agenda is the Muslim Brotherhood, now banned as a terrorist group in its home country of Egypt but prospering in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in what has been known as the Free World. In fact, as Egyptian courts hand down death sentences to those engaged with the Brotherhood’s violent efforts to overthrow the government there, ours is opening the door to asylum for those who have only engaged in “limited” material support for terrorism.

More insidious than the Muslim Brotherhood’s violence, however, is its stealthy subversion. In a 1991 strategic plan introduced into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial, a senior member named Mohammed Akram described this form of warfare as “civilization jihad.”

In Akram’s words, the goal of the Brotherhood’s civilization jihadists is “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within… so that God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” His “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” lays out how this ambitious goal is to be achieved under our noses by penetrating and subverting “from within” the West’s civil society and governing institutions.

The London Telegraph reports that this campaign has just scored a major success in Great Britain. The country’s trade association for lawyers, the Law Society, has declared its members can begin drawing up shariah-compliant wills that will be enforceable in British common law courts.

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.

The documents, which would be recognized by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs.

Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Shariah principles, which recognize only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.

Such inroads are coming on top of the presence of something on the order of 87 shariah courts that operate side-by-side with Britain’s own judiciary. One of the U.K.’s most courageous opponents of such practices, Baroness Caroline Cox, said: “No longer do we have a single legal code in our society. Instead, alongside our own law, there is now effectively a parallel quasi-legal system operating within some Muslim communities.”

Think that cannot happen here? Think again. The Muslim Brotherhood’s largest front group in this country, the Islamic Society of North America, requires each of its chapters to maintain arbitration panels that serve as proto-shariah courts. It is a matter of time before Islamists and their apologists begin demanding that such courts be allowed to adjudicate disputes not just between willing parties but in cases where one party – most likely women and/or children – would prefer to have the protections of our Constitution.

Worse yet, as a study published by the Center for Security Policy in 2011 has documented, there have been at least 27 different instances in which U.S. courts have allowed the use of shariah law to govern – even where doing so has violated constitutional rights of the plaintiffs or defendants. (An updated version of this study now nearing completion indicates that, as of today, there are many more such cases.)

As a corrective to this civilization jihadist incursion into American jurisprudence, seven states have adopted legislation known as American Laws for American Courts (ALAC). If they wish to avoid the fate now facing British citizens who are likely to be denied their rightful inheritances and, in due course, other privations at the hands of shariah, every state in the country should adopt ALAC.

Of course, our Constitution’s Article VI declares that it is the supreme law of the land. But that will not long be the case if the civilization jihadists have their way. We must ensure that shariah is not allowed to undermine that constitutional precept – to the detriment of women, children, and the rest of us.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. formerly acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan. He is President of the Center for Security Policy (, a columnist for Breitbart News Network, and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio. 

Rabbi Hausman’s Letter to Georgia Legislators on America Law for American Courts

Rabbi Jonathan Hausman(1)

New English Review,

By Rabbi Jonathan Hausman:

Re: HB 895 – Foreign Law; prohibit the application of foreign law in Georgia courts; violations of rights guaranteed natural citizens by U.S. and Georgia Constitutions

Dear Congressman  Hightower,

My name is Rabbi Jonathan Hausman.  I have a BA in Judaic Studies, MA in International Affairs concentrating on the Middle East (both degrees from The George Washington University), JD from Emory University (licensed to practice in the State of Connecticut and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania), and my Rabbinic degree from Kollel Lomdei Torah of The Tifereth Israel Rabbinical Yeshiva.  I spent a great deal of time living and studying in the Middle East having lived and worked in Israel and studied at The American University of Cairo.  I read, speak and write Hebrew and Arabic, and am conversant in Jewish and Islamic sacralized texts and literature.

It has come to my attention that representatives of the Anti-Defamation League gave testimony opposing the aforementioned legislation SB 895 – Foreign Law; prohibit the application of foreign law in Georgia courts; violations of rights guaranteed natural citizens by U.S. and Georgia Constitutions

I write to you in response as one who possesses the unique skills to plumb the sources of two traditions (Judaism and Islam) along with the requisite legal training appertaining to US law and Constitutional governance.

Indeed, a comprehensive study was undertaken by the Center for Security Policy (CSP) in 2011 which uncovered the extent of the use of Sharia (Islamic Law) as the basis for legal decisions.  50 Appellate court cases from 23 States were reviewed in this study.  Most of the cases referenced in this study involve Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process in cases dealing with divorce and child custody. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah.  However, all 50 Appellate decisions dealt with the application of Sharia in contravention to the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.

The CSP study’s findings suggest that Sharia law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Sharia law in U.S. state court cases; yet the Center for Security Policy found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases in 2011.  The number of lower court decisions that did not result in appeals is not known as such cases are generally not reported.

With all due respect to the claims of the ADL that the aforementioned legislation’s supposed purpose is to counter the infiltration of our judicial and legal system by Sharia (Islamic) law while subsequently claiming that no Georgia court decision, or any other court decision, demonstrating an actual need for this legislation can be found is demonstrably incorrect.

Many have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Sharia law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy; once again, the Center’s study found 15 Trial Court cases, and 12 Appellate Court cases, where Sharia was found to be applicable in these particular instances. The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Sharia law even when those decisions conflict with Constitutional protections.  The complete study is available at

Some have also claimed that such legislation is applicable to all religious law. So, for instance, the observant Jewish community regularly uses religious tribunals (Batei Din) to resolve all kinds of disputes, including divorce settlements, which often are the basis for civil court divorce decrees and orders. But this legislation would prevent a Jewish couple in Texas from voluntarily using a Bet Din to resolve their divorce settlement, and also would invalidate an out-of state divorce based on a Bet Din arbitration.   This is incorrect.

There is a basic Rabbinic principle that has operated since roughly the year 226 CE. That principle is known asDina d’malchuta Dina, the law of the country is binding and, in certain cases, is to be preferred to Jewish law/Halacha.  Rabbinical developments evidenced a practicality regarding dealing with and maintaining positive relationships with the governing non-Jewish civil society (e.g. Parthian and subsequent Sassanid Persian rulers of Babylonia) which surrounded the Jewish community.  This extended to the Jewish communities of Europe and, subsequently, transplanted to the United States.

While it is true that Jews maintained their own courts in certain locales during certain historical periods whose decisions were enforced by the secular authorities, such Rabbinical court decisions always were set aside if there was a conflict with the society at large.  As a member of the Rabbinate who engages frequently with many different issues regarding matters of personal status (marriage, divorce, property settlements, etc.), I can attest to one basic fact of legal life.  If a Get (Jewish bill of divorce) is issued by a husband to a wife without a civil divorce, that couple is still married in every jurisdiction in this country.  This is just one example amongst many.

Halacha/Jewish Law has this precept that one must be reconciled to changed circumstances regarding government, and that civil law is necessary for the functioning of the greater society. The result was an internal recognition of Judaism’s non-supercessionist and non-conversionary character. According to the Prophet Nehemiah, Jews should obey the laws of their rulers (Nehemiah 9:37).  It extends to real property issues (after all, the government could/can confiscate property), common currency, taxes, recognition of administrative officers and documents and regulations issued by such authorities, as well as the appointed juridical positions within and outside of the Jewish community.

As for those issues dealing with personal piety (e.g. Kashruth, that is observance of the Jewish dietary rules), such only apply to Jews specifically and not to the world at large.  There is nothing coercive vis a vis general society.

Sharia, on its face might be described as the religious code for living the moral system according to Islamic tradition; perhaps, in the same way the Bible would serve for Christians. The difference is quite stark, however.

Sharia refers both to the Islamic system of law and the totality of the Islamic way of life. It is immutable, perfect, unchangeable, static, and unchanging.  Death penalty for apostasy, as well as homosexuality, adultery, freedom of speech issues when it comes to criticizing Islam or Muhammad or drawing satire cartoons, disfigurement for theft, depredations suffered by women (e.g. the increasing frequency of honor killings in the US protected under Shariah, female genital mutilation, child custody and absconding of minor children) and the irrelevancy of women’s testimony as well as lower percentage of inheritance and no rights regarding issues of child custody, plaintiffs exacting legal revenge (eye for an eye is taken literally), gambling, alcohol consumption all command exacting punishment under Sharia.

The only instance in the United States dealing with a criminal prosecution for female genital mutilation occurred in Georgia.  Furthermore, there are known to be two cases of children of a marriage between a non-Muslim American mother and a Saudi Muslim father who absconded with the children because Sharia law dictates that custody resides solely with the Muslim father and male relatives.

The United States has a Constitution under which the government functions, and the Bill of Rights which protects basic human rights and freedom – rights derived from the Almighty according to the secular foundational documents of these United States – freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of education and freedom to organize political parties. The pertinent question regarding Sharia is thus.  Does Sharia, as a legal system act in consonance with the Constitutional legal principles so cherished by and supported by over two centuries of American case law or does it stand for a diminution of the rights of many segments of our population?  If the latter, then legislation such as HB 895, The application of foreign law and foreign forum selection in certain family law proceedings certainly is one of the surest methods to protect the Constitutional rights of parties in family law matters under Georgia law and practice, as well as in front of the Georgia Judiciary.


Rabbi Jonathan H. Hausman

BA,MA, JD, Rabbinic Ordination

Spiritual Leader

Ahavath Torah Congregation

Stoughton, Massachusetts

Cc:  Congressman Wendell Willard, Chair, GA House Judiciary Committee

Congressman David Ralston, Speaker, GA State House

Congressman Alex Atwood, Secretary, Public Safety and Homeland Security




Islamist-Interfaith Alliance Battles Foreign Law Bans

IslamWillDominateWhiteHouseBy Ryan Mauro:

Shoulder-to-Shoulder, an interfaith coalition allied with the Islamic Society of North America, is mobilizing its supporters against state legislation that stops foreign law from superseding the Constitution. The Islamists’ non-Muslim allies are helping frame it as an unnecessary, bigoted initiative that threatens all people of faith.

The coalition is holding a webinar on February 27. The announcement correctly notes that current legislation does not mention Shariah, though it is covered under the terminology of “foreign law.” Seven states have passed such bills since 2010.

Shoulder-to-Shoulder’s description makes it sound like the legislation is a ban on foreign law influencing judges’ decision altogether. It states:

“Most religious laws that influence these contracts (like Jewish Halakha, Catholic Canon law, or Islamic Shariah law) were not developed within the United States and would be considered foreign law under such legislation. While anti-Muslim sentiment is still the motivating factor behind these laws, Americans of every faith should be concerned about their impact on religious freedom.”

This is an easily refutable misrepresentation of the bills, based on the American Laws for American Courts draft legislation. It does not ban religious contracts like those mentioned by Shoulder-to-Shoulder, nor is it a blanket ban on foreign law. It only applies when there is a conflict between the U.S. Constitution and foreign law in court and it victimizes no one, especially not Muslims because Muslim-Americans are benefactors of it.

2011 study found 50 cases where Shariah or foreign law based on Shariah influenced the court case. The American Public Policy Alliance has a list of 10 cases where a Muslim-American party objected to the role of Shariah. The summary is as follows:

“In cases 1-3, the Appellate Courts upheld Shariah law; in cases 4-7, the Trial Courts upheld Shariah, but the Appellate Courts reversed (protecting the litigant’s constitutional rights); in cases 8-10, both Trial and Appellate Courts rejected the attempts to enforce Shariah law.”

ALAC is sometimes criticized as unnecessary and driven by unsubstantiated paranoia. It is hard to imagine that an American judge would ever rule give foreign law precedence over American law. The American Public Policy Alliance explains that the bill fixes a troublesome loophole:

Most states merely state that foreign laws and judgments that violate the state’s “public policy” shall not be recognized. But the courts consistently rule that the state legislature has the responsibility to articulate clearly what the state’s public policy actually is.

The ALAC website points out the hypocrisy of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. In response to business dress codes enforced on Muslim-American women in France, CAIR communications director Ibrahim Hooper unwittingly supported the rationale behind ALAC.

“A discriminatory dress code implemented in France does not supersede American laws protecting the religious rights of American citizens,” he said. He said CAIR is “defending American law from foreign intrusion.”

The American-Islamic Forum for Democracy supports ALAC-type bills because it has seen how Shariah has affected Muslims in Europe. The bills’ purpose is not to pre-empt a hypothetical situation. It’s a reaction to what is actually happening right now.

2010 study found that Shariah courts in the United Kingdom lack accountability, to say the least. There are not clear standards for appointing judges and monitoring proceedings and rulings often conflict with British law. For example, British courts’ first priority is the interest of the child. Shariah courts rule that children automatically go into the custody of the father after a certain age.

The British Justice Ministry investigated Shariah courts and had to end give up because of a lack of cooperation from the court staffs.

The misrepresentations by Shoulder-to-Shoulder stem from its relationship with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. The Foundation was another Brotherhood entity that was shut down for financing Hamas. This isn’t six degrees of separation: The Holy Land Foundation operated within ISNA, according to a 2009 ruling by a federal judge.

ISNA said on its website last month that it “founded” Shoulder-to-Shoulder to counter increasing bigotry against Muslims. Elsewhere on its website, ISNA saysit “helped convene” the coalition of 28 religious organizations. Whichever way it is worded, the point is that Shoulder-to-Shoulder is largely a product of ISNA.

And who is the ISNA official leading its interfaith campaign and, therefore, its work with Shoulder-to-Shoulder? Former Secretary-General Sayyid Syeed, who is seen in The Grand Deception documentary saying in 2006, “Our job is to change the constitution of America.” His current job title at ISNA is National Director of ISNA’s Office of Interfaith and Community Alliances.

Read more at Front Page

U.S. Islamists Press to Block Anti-Sharia Legislation

states enacting ALACBY CLARE LOPEZ:

As momentum builds across the U.S. to reinforce safeguards for the primacy of American laws in the U.S. legal system through legislation at the state level, the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters are beginning to panic.

To date, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have all enacted legislation that would ensure primacy for U.S. Constitutional law in cases where enforcing foreign laws or judgments, including Islamic law (sharia), “would deprive a party of a constitutional right or liberty,” as explained by David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC).

In mid-summer 2013, the North Carolina legislature, both House and Senate, passed HB 522, the Foreign Laws/Protect Constitutional Rights Bill, with broad bipartisan support. Not surprisingly, the HAMAS and Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was named by the Justice Department an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial, has mounted an email blitz campaign, urging North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory to veto the bill instead of signing it.

Written in neutral language, this bill is modeled after American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) language offered by the American Public Policy Alliance (APPA). The North Carolina bill, now before Governor McCrory for signature into law, specifies that the intent of the measure is to “protect its citizens from the application of foreign law that would result in the violation of a fundamental constitutional right of a natural person.”

Thus, contrary to some of the criticism aimed at this bill, there is nothing in its language that would prohibit consideration of foreign law in North Carolina courts: it is only if and when application of such foreign law (sharia or any other) would deprive persons before a North Carolina court the rights to which they are entitled under the U.S. Constitution (and its derivative laws).

In such a case, American law would take precedence over foreign law. In cases that involve no conflict between U.S. law and foreign law, comity (mutual recognition of a respective country’s legislation) may be applied.

With the June 2011 publication by the Center for Security Policy (CSP) of a report entitled “Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of American Appellate Court Cases,” the American Public Policy Alliance took notice that Islamic law increasingly has entered into state court decisions in ways that conflict with the U.S. Constitution and state public policy.

Alarmingly, not only do some judges not understand what sharia is, but make decisions that defer to it even when those decisions conflict with U.S. Constitutional protections. Islamic law is antithetical to American laws, principles and traditions in many ways, but most specifically in its rejection — and even criminalization — of basic freedoms, including freedom of belief, press, speech, due process, equal protection under the law, privacy and the right to bear arms

Read more at The Clarion Project


Stealth Jihad Alert – Muslim Libertarian Group Infiltrates Tea Party Movement

Will Coley with wife Farah Adam

Will Coley with wife Farah Adam


Tea Party circles in East Tennessee might seem an unlikely environment for launching a Muslim organization. Will Coley, a 31-year-old Tennessee native, Muslim convert and Tea Party activist did just that.

His one person outreach project to Tea Party conservatives and libertarians grew into the first national organization countering Islamophobia on the Right.

Their message: Islam is compatible with an anti-big government or libertarian philosophy. They do not denounce sharia, but defend it within a libertarian framework.

“Our approach is different,” says Coley. “We use principles within sharia like maqasid (primary goals) to show their connection with John Locke’s principles of life, liberty and property.”

Coley claims this strategy makes an impact.

“I have noticed everywhere we go it is about the same,” says Coley. “We talk to 50 people. The five to six that pointed the group in an anti-Islam direction still hate us, but the rest start thinking, researching.”

Most notably, in 2011 Coley persuaded the majority of Tea Party organizations in East Tennessee to take a stand against Islamophobia.

After speaking with fourteen Tea Party chapters about Muslim beliefs on liberty and sharia (Islamic religious law code), twelve of them agreed to reject anti-Muslim appeals. They even publically supported a petition opposing a proposed “sharia ban” in Tennessee.

Coley’s efforts drew the attention of members of the small but growing community of Muslim libertarians, especially after an initial article on the anti-Islamophobia website

Davi Barker, 31, a California journalist, national columnist at and blogger for Silver Circle Underground and Daily Anarchist, first contacted Coley to do a story on him. The two quickly began working closely together. Coley did the public presentations, and Barker writing on their philosophy of Islamic libertarianism. They were soon joined by Hesham El-Meligy, 41, from New England and Ramy Osman, 35, from Virginia.

The last two had started a website called, while Coley and Barker had independently started a Facebook group called Muslims For Liberty. They decided to combine forces.

“[W]e started collaboration with them and we became a family immediately,” says El-Meligy.

By 2012, Muslims4Liberty/Muslims For Liberty (M4L) has gained hundreds of followers, establishing chapters in Tennessee, California, Ohio, Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C., as well as in Australia, Malaysia and Pakistan.

El-Meligy, drawing on his connections and experience in the Northeast US, led M4L’s work with other groups in opposing New York Police Department surveillance of American Muslims. Osman organized M4L’s participation in the National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms’ (NCPCF) “Ramadan Gifts for Prisoners” charity drive. M4L also co-sponsored the only two national debates featuring third party presidential candidates during the 2012 election, hosted by Larry King and broadcast by C-Span and Al Jazeera.

Read the rest at Illume


The truth:

[PDF] – Shariah Law vs. the Constitution 



Popular U.S. Imam: Constitution Inferior to Sharia

Popular Imam Zaid Shakir: "If Islam is the basis (of the government), the kafir won’t be equal with the Muslim. The Christian or the Jew will be a dhimmi. They won’t be equal with the Muslim."

Popular Imam Zaid Shakir: “If Islam is the basis (of the government), the kafir won’t be equal with the Muslim. The Christian or the Jew will be a dhimmi. They won’t be equal with the Muslim.”


While you were spending Memorial Day Weekend barbequing and honoring the U.S. servicemen who gave their lives for the country,18,000 people attended an annual Muslim-American conference in Connecticut. An additional 14,000 watched online. And the message they heard from one prominent speaker was particularly offensive in light of the holiday: The U.S. Constitution is inferior to Islamic Sharia Law.

The imam is named Zaid Shakir; he’s no stranger to readers of the Clarion Project. We’ve documented his Islamist ideology and anti-American rhetoric repeatedly. Despite the shredding apart of his “moderate” costume, he continues to be a sought-after speaker at Islamic venues across the country. He’s also co-founder and chairmanof Zaytuna College in California, the subject of a recent New York Times whitewashing.

He spoke at the annual Islamic Circle of North America-Muslim American Society conference on May 25 at the Hartford Convention Center in Connecticut.

1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo, which defines its “work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within,” lists ICNA as one of its fronts. Predictably, ICNA demands that the U.S. cut off military aid to Egypt in retaliation for the military’s overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The subject of his speech was “The Legitimacy of Secularism” and a video of his speech has been posted online.  It was an attack on secularism, modernity and how the U.S. Constitution based “membership” on equal citizenship instead of religion.

Read more at The Clarion Project

“American Laws for American Courts” Public Policy Initiative Advances in State Legislatures as AFLC Leads Citizens Awareness Drive

images (84)AFLC:American

In the past year, over 10,000 American citizens have petitioned elected representatives from their respective state governments to enact the “American Laws for American Courts” (ALAC) legislation, which is designed to prohibit the application of foreign law when it would violate fundamental constitutional rights such as due process and equal protection.  David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), was the principal drafter of the model legislation, which has passed in states such as Arizona, Louisiana, Kansas, and Tennessee.

AFLC sponsored a citizens awareness drive to alert Americans about this public policy initiative to protect their rights from constitutionally offensive foreign laws, including – but not limited to – sharia law.  Indeed, extensive research conducted by the Center for Security Policy, a national security thank tank, has found over 50 significant cases from a small sample of published cases indicating that sharia law has permeated state court decisions nationwide.

Yerushalmi commented: “The fact that 10,000 individual Americans responded to our citizens awareness drive demonstrates the growing concern about the imposition of sharia law and its pernicious effect in American courts.  Even more important, it shows that Americans are listening to AFLC’s arguments, which have exposed the fact that numerous judges nationwide have applied sharia over United States law.  People get it: American Laws for American Courts is not a slogan, it is actual legislation available to every state that enacts it, and it will ensure that no state court applies foreign laws or judgments that deprive a party of their constitutional rights.”

In Hosain v. Malik, a classic example of a state court enforcing sharia law, a Maryland appellate court agreed with a lower court’s decision to defer to a Pakistani Sharia Court that granted sole, unrestricted custody of a child to her father even though the mother was not provided due process in the proceedings.  The mother had argued that if she had gone to Pakistan to contest the case, she would have been subject to capital punishment for having a new relationship with a man not sanctioned by sharia.  Nonetheless, the Maryland appellate court ruled that her failure to go to Pakistan and take the risk of execution precluded her from making a public policy argument against the enforcement of sharia law.  In this case, ALAC would have provided the Maryland appellate court the legislative clarity to reverse the lower court’s decision.

In spite of its constitutional defenses, ALAC has faced fierce opposition from Muslim Brotherhood groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which claim that passing ALAC legislation discriminates against Muslims.

Yerushalmi commented: “Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR have joined the ‘blame-America’ Left to challenge these laws, but the fact is ALAC has not been overturned in any of the states that have passed it because it is not just a constitutional law, it is the best way to protect the constitutional liberties of all American citizens.”

Robert Muise, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, added: “The American Freedom Law Center commends those loyal and courageous American citizens who have sounded the alarm to their elected officials about the threat posed by sharia and other foreign laws to the American legal system.  And we hope these officials heed their citizens’ concerns by sponsoring this important legislation.”

The Center for American Progress’ Willful Blindness

images (76)By Andrew E. Harrod:

The Center for American Progress (CAP) unveiled its report Foreign Law Bans: Legal Uncertainties and Practical Problems at a May 16, 2013, event at CAP’s Washington, DC, headquarters.  CAP’s analysts are unconcerned by the influence of sharia and other foreign laws in America.

CAP’s event and report opposed state-level legislative efforts across the United States to implement versions of the American Law for American Courts (ALAC) model law of the American Public Policy Alliance (APPA).  The text of this law voids any foreign legal decision not respecting the “same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions.”  Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee have adopted such laws.

Stephen M. Gelé, a Louisiana lawyer active in his state’s adoption of ALAC, explored its rationale at Breitbart.  Gelé analyzed six appellate cases reviewing trial court decisions with varying results based upon troubling elements of sharia.  Gelé drew upon 50 state court appellate cases involving sharia law documented in a Center for Security Policy (CSP) study.

Contradicting CAP arguments that existing law negated sharia’s influence on the American judiciary, Gelé cautioned that “some appellate opinions, and almost all trial court judgments, are not widely published.” “Many, if not most, trial court decisions applying sharia” underwent no appeal, a process costing $10,000-50,000 in divorce and child custody cases.  Regardless, “women and children should not be forced to play legal Russian roulette” with courts “applying legal doctrines, including sharia, inconsistent with American constitutional rights and public policy.”

Similar concerns prompted me at the end of the CAP panel (mark 1:13 on the online video) to ask about any “seepage” of sharia norms into American free speech jurisprudence.  As referenced by me, in recent years several American incidents involving Islam and free speech have been deeply disturbing.  An October 2011 assault by a Muslim immigrant upon an atheist mocking Islam’s Prophet Muhammad in a Pennsylvania parade, for example, led to a district court judge dismissing clearly documented criminal charges amidst his discussion of Islamic prohibitions on blasphemy.

Another concern is so-called “libel tourism” in which various Muslim individuals have sought libel judgments against American authors in foreign jurisdictions not possessing America’s strict free speech safeguards.  In response, the APPA, the Middle East Forum’s (MEF) Legal Project (LP), and others have promoted “Rachel’s Law,” named for Rachel Ehrenfeld after being found guilty in a British court for libelously accusing a Saudi prince of funding terrorism.  Now in effect at the federal level and in several states, such laws prevent the enforcement of foreign libel judgments not respecting American free speech standards.  As indicated by me in my question, Rachel’s Law parallels the analysis of ALAC with respect to the single issue of libel, and ALAC would make any specific Rachel’s Law unnecessary.

David Yerushalmi, derided in the CAP report as the key “anti-Islam” activist behind the foreign law bans, meanwhile, has taken on along with his colleague Robert Muise at the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) several cases defending free speech involving Islam.  AFLC, for example, defeated breaching the peace charges brought against four Christians who distributed religious literature to Muslims at a 2010 Dearborn, Michigan, Arab festival.  In a civil rights suit against Dearborn city officials, AFLC later obtained a settlement including a city apology for the arrest and prosecution.  AFLC is similarly currently litigating another case involving the very same Dearborn Arab festival in 2012 and proselytizing Christians.

Intricate legal concerns involving posited unintended consequences from foreign law bans dominated the CAP panel and report.  As a matter of principle, however, CAP and its allied panelists seemed to recognize no threat in sharia, as the recorded response to my question shows.  Report coauthor Faiza Patel from the Brennan Center for Justice, for example, discussed the judicial “Void as against Public Policy Rule” previously cited by the panel and the CAP report such that any free speech infringement “would be kicked out.”  Yet as this article indicates,this rule, in the words of the APPA, is often unavailing “because state legislatures have generally not been explicit about what their public policy is relative to foreign laws.”

Read more at American Thinker

The Guarantee Clause: Congress’ Duty to Oppose Theocracy in the United States

082411_koran-constitution-lgBy Robert M. Petrusak:

[Editor’s note: New Gingrich has called for a Federal ban on Sharia law in America.]

Theocracy is inherently oppressive and contrary to America’s core values. It regards God as the sovereign and source of law. It therefore places the coercive power of the state–including interpretation and enforcement of law–in the hands of believers. It excludes non-believers from the body politic and brings them suffering. In total contrast, the Declaration of Independence regards God not as a source of coercive power, but as a guarantor of inalienable rights including liberty and equality. The Declaration states that government derives its sovereign authority or “just powers” not from God, but “from the consent of the governed.” This concept of popular sovereignty is reflected not only in the preamble of the Constitution, but also in the “Guarantee Clause” of Article IV, Section 4 which obligates the federal government to preserve a republican form of government in every state. The Constitution also precludes theocracy through the First Amendment’s ban on laws respecting establishments of religion or prohibiting “free exercise” of religious beliefs.

Political Islam or “Islamism” is theocratic. It may be defined as a belief that Islam should control society and politics, not simply personal religious life. Accordingly to the eminent scholar Bernard Lewis, the ideal Islamic polity recognizes God as sole sovereign and law-giver and assigns believers the task of spreading His revelation until the entire world accepts it. This is to be achieved by extending the authority and membership of the community that follows God’s law, the Shariah, which deals with the acquisition and exercise of power and the duties of ruler and subject. [1] Accordingly, Shariah is not simply a prescription for exercising personal belief through activity such as prayer and diet. It is a system of laws that affects the conduct of both believers and non- believers in Islamic theocracies. More ominously, expansion of the community that regards God as sovereign suggests contraction and disempowerment of the community which does not.

Political Islam therefore challenges the United States Constitution, particularly its embrace of liberty, equality, and popular sovereignty. There is concern that this challenge includes not only violent terrorism but an ideological struggle against non-Islamic courts and legal systems and the principle that the people, not God, are the source of political and legal authority .There is similarly concern that Islamists seek to establish “functionally Islamic governments” in every nation [2] and that toward this end, they will create divisive alternative communities by insinuating Islamic rules of conduct for the temporal world into courts and other institutions. There is even concern that Islamism will limit traditional free speech through application of its restrictions on defamation of religion or blasphemy. [3]

Such concerns have resulted in “anti-shariah legislation” in various states and subsequent court battles over whether such laws violate the constitutional rights of Muslims. However, such concerns raise issues of national importance because efforts to make public institutions Shariah-compliant may violate not only the First Amendment’s provisions on religion or free speech but also the Fourteenth Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution. The former guarantees due process and equal protection; the latter proclaims the supremacy of federal statutes, treaties and constitutional provisions. Moreover, Article IV, Section 4 creates an affirmative federal obligation to guarantee a non-theocratic, “Republican Form of Government” in every state.

The very essence of republican government is the belief that sovereignty rests with the people. [4]. Our Constitution is derived exclusively from the people and alterable only by them through elected representatives. Similarly, elected representatives and elected or duly-appointed judges, not religious leaders, enact and interpret our statutory law. [5] These principles of popular sovereignty support the Article IV guarantee of republican government and are related to the concept of equality. Thus, the guarantee clause would be invoked in the struggle against slavery and in the post-Civil War struggle to include freed slaves in the body politic. [6] In this regard, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection evolved from our concept of republican government, [7] and a state that denies this fundamental right similarly violates Article IV, Section 4. The introduction into American courts, of laws or legal principles derived from a sovereign God or religious texts cannot be tolerated and the federal government has a clear responsibility to keep theocracy out of state courts and other public institutions.

Read more at Right Side News

Muslim Group Calls for ‘Litigation Jihad’

Group from Sankore Institute of Islamic-African Studies International

Group from Sankore Institute of Islamic-African Studies International

The objective of the “litigation jihad” is more than freeing Muslims from jail. It’s a strategy to institute Sharia law in the U.S.

By Ryan Mauro:

The website of the Sankore Institute of Islamic-African Studies International (SIIASI), based in Pittsburgh, P.A., calls on Muslims to engage in “litigation jihad” as a means of moving the U.S. towards Sharia law. The anti-American group had its offices raided by the FBI in 2006.

“The United States has long held Muslim political prisoners within its federal, state and now privatized penal colonies. It is by waging a litigation jihad [sic] in the US penal system that some redress can be made in the international community as well. It is for this reason that Muslim inmate legal actions in the US courts constitute the front line of defense of Islam,” SIIASI says.

The objective of the “litigation jihad” is bigger than freeing Muslims from jail. It continues:

“Every successful Muslim litigation passed in the U.S. courts, is a standardization and recognition of the Islamic shari’a….but more importantly it is a perfecting and refining of the United States constitution.”

The organization states that the jihad should lead an “internationally recognized SOCIAL CONTRACT between the United States and its Muslim national minorities; which is consistent with the shari’a, but does not challenge the sovereignty of the United States.”

Don’t be fooled by the moderate costume disguising the extremist language.

SIIASI’s leader, Imam Muhammad Shareef, regularly refers to the U.S. as “Amerikkka.” He preaches against democracy and in favor of violent jihad. In 2010, Shareef condemned the “the pseudo-religion redefined by the pacifist “imams” who deny the obligation of jihad and who have deluded their followers into the fruitless activity of supporting democratic constitutional government.”

He then quoted Mohammed, the founder of Islam, as saying “There is coming upon man a time when some of the religious scholars will say, ‘This is not a time for jihad.’  For whoever comes upon that time, then know that the most blessed action during that time will be jihad.”


In the wake of the Boston bombings, we must not focus only on the acts themselves, but the ideology that drove them. The anti-American ideology it espouses is the egg from which jihadists hatch.

Read more at The Clarion Project