London’s Culture War: Inside the Conflict Between Far-Right EDL and Pro-Islamic Radicals

ABC News, By JACKIE JESKO and ALEX WATERFIELD

A notorious British protest movement called The English Defense League has declared war on radical Islam, a battle they are taking to the streets in rowdy, often violent protests.

Their founder, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, goes by the alias, “Tommy Robinson.” He claims that his group is not anti-Muslim, but several of his followers have been connected to hate attacks like mosque bombings.

Robinson said the gruesome murder of Lee Rigby was the “tipping point” that spurred the group to rise in prominence. Last May, two knife-wielding Muslim men savagely attacked and beheaded Rigby, a British soldier, on the streets of London in broad daylight, telling eyewitnesses the killing was “an eye for an eye … because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day.”

“Nightline” met with an infamous Islamic preacher named Anjem Choudary and his group of young followers in the streets of London, where they were advocating for Sharia law. Choudary, whose extremist Muslim group was banned under Britain’s Terrorism Act, refused to condemn the killing of Rigby.

Several of Choudary’s followers take part in so-called “Sharia Patrols” in the streets of London. YouTube videos of these patrols surfaced online and immediately caused public outcry. They show young Muslims speaking out to enforce Sharia law on the streets — harassing a man they believe to be gay, ordering a man to stop drinking and telling a young woman she is dressed immodestly.

When “Nightline” went on a Sharia Patrol, the leader said that they wish for Sharia law to rule the world, and that Muslims should give up any other identity but their religion.

ABC’s Lama Hasan, who is a British Muslim, spent time with both Robinson and the Sharia Patrol in London, to get to the heart of conflict between the warring sides. She goes back to the neighborhood of Luton, which is not only Robinson’s hometown, but was also the launch point for the July 7, 2005 London suicide bombings, the worst terrorist attack in British history.

The Support for Sharia Law Around the World

Sharia_dominate1-450x299By Rachel Molschky:

Sharia law is gaining ground across the world. An overwhelming majority of Muslims support the implementation of Islamic law in Muslim countries, in non-Muslim countries- in any country where they live.

The mainstream media wants us to believe that Muslims are well integrated, and only jihadists go around terrorizing people and subjugating them to Sharia law, like the new report of a jihadist group in Libya which now hopes to take over the town of Derna and enforce Sharia.“We also declare our hostility towards the enemies of G-d and His prophet — Jews, Christians and Taghouts.” (“Taghouts” are apparently non-Sharia compliant state institutions.)

While groups like this one and the Sharia-based Taliban are viewed as dangerous and militant, in varying degrees, Sharia law is the norm in nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan. Many other Islamic nations implement at least part of Sharia law in their governments, and more are following suit.

This past fall, Brunei became the first East Asian State to fully adopt Sharia law and begin following a Saudi Arabia-style penal code. Ankit Panda of The Diplomat writes, “… some commentators have suggested that such strict Sharia law may be in conflict with Malay culture, and Brunei’s peaceful nature. Brunei, officially known as the Nation of Brunei, the Abode of Peace, might find itself hard-pressed to retain that moniker with its foray into such a draconian legal system.” Funny how implementing the laws of the “Religion of Peace” onto the “Abode of Peace” is not very peaceful!

The adherents of this supposed “Religion of Peace” have declared their full support of Sharia on a global scale. A Pew study done in 2013, asked Muslims from 23 countries across Southeastern Europe, Asia, North Africa and the Middle East, their views on Sharia. The study found that “in 17 of the 23 countries where the question was asked, at least half of Muslims say sharia is the revealed word of G-d.” The top four in this group were Pakistan, where 81% believe this, Jordan which tied with Pakistan, and Egypt and the Palestinian territories, each with 75%.

Yet nearly all the Muslims surveyed either believe that it is the revealed word of G-d, or was developed by men but based on the word of G-d. There really is not much distinction between the two. Either way, they believe it is inspired by G-d. Looking at the complete numbers this way, the percent of Sharia supporters in the very same countries are 89% in Pakistan, 99% in Jordan, 95% in Egypt and 91% in the Palestinian territories.

In Afghanistan where Western countries have fought hard against the Taliban, which “inflicts” its strict Sharia rules onto the “poor, non-extremist” Muslim population, it turns out that 94% of Muslims there support Sharia law after all.

But who wants to make Sharia the official law of their country? According to the survey results, the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Southeast Asia (like Malaysia at 86%), South Asia (Afghanistan 99% and Pakistan 84%), the Middle East and North Africa (the highest being Iraq at 91% and the Palestinian territories at 89%), and Sub-Saharan Africa (with the biggest supporter being the Muslims of Niger.)

So what’s the big deal over Sharia law anyway? Shouldn’t every religion have the right to follow its own laws? Well, not exactly. Not when the laws of the religion conflict dramatically with the laws of the land.

In the case of Sharia, the laws are incompatible with Western society, which is largely based on a common Judeo-Christian culture. Other religions besides Judaism and Christianity often share a similar moral foundation, making it easier for their adherents to assimilate. Islam, however, fails miserably. Most Muslims who integrate well into our Western culture are secular, but fundamentalism is a growing trend and is more of a normality among Muslims than among other religious groups. This explains why the global support for Sharia among Muslims is so high.

What is Sharia?

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

Also see:

The Reliance of the Traveller

On the 100th Anniversary of International Women’s Day — What Are Feminists Doing About Honor Killings?

Phyllis Chesler

Phyllis Chesler

By :

Editor’s note: The following is adapted from a speech delivered on March 8 by the author in observance of  Women’s History Month to theGender Fairness Committee of the New York City Supreme Court.

When my Second Wave generation of feminists started out, Gender Fairness committees did not exist nor did as many women lawyers and judges or the number of feminist lawyers, both male and female, whom I see here today. As many of you know, my or should I say, our generation had the privilege of changing all that.

We also named and exposed the hidden epidemic of physical and sexual violence towards women and children.

Second Wave feminists challenged sexism in advertising, (we still do), the pornography industry, (which has grown), and prostitution which now includes human sexual trafficking.

We also challenged corporations for economically discriminating against women; that work continues. We took on drug companies whose medications caused women to die from cancer. We championed women’s reproductive and sexual rights but we also challenged birth control. We waged a war to save women’s lives. The work continues.

Courtesy of Second Wave feminist activism, more women entered previously all-male professions, and some men became feminists.

Before the Second Wave began making waves, mothers received little child support and less alimony—that has improved although custody battles have, in some ways, gotten harder, more terrible. The 25th anniversary edition of “Mothers on Trial” will be published this summer with eight new chapters.

Our generation had a universalist vision of human rights—one standard for all. I still do. While I believe in cultural diversity, I am not a multi-cultural relativist. Therefore, I have taken a strong stand against the persecution of Muslim women and dissidents. Thus, I now submit expert courtroom affidavits on behalf of Muslim girls and women who have fled being honor murdered and are seeking asylum here.

Those of us who expose the plight of such women, and this includes Somali-born feminist hero Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as well as myself, have been demonized as “Islamophobes” and racists because we do not, in the same breath, blame America, the West, or Israel for their suffering.

In my view, western academic feminists, including gay liberationists, are so afraid of being condemned as “colonialists” or “racists” that this fear trumps their concern for women’s rights in the Arab and Muslim world.

What is Islamic Gender Apartheid? Islamic gender apartheid is characterized by normalized daughter- and wife-battering, forced veiling, female genital mutilation, polygamy, purdah, (the segregation or sequestration of women), arranged marriage, child marriage, first cousin marriage; girls and women are honor murdered if they resist such practices, if they wish to divorce a dangerously abusive husband, and if they are viewed as too independent, too modern.

Today, at its most extreme, Islamic gender apartheid is characterized by acid attacks, public stonings, hangings, and beheading of women in Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia—countries in which girls and women who are raped are further victimized: jailed, tortured, and executed.

Feminists should be crying out from the rooftops against these practices. Some are. I am. Yet, many Muslim men and women, as well as many intellectually “progressive” western infidels, are not. They are demanding or welcoming the imposition of Islamic religious law, Sharia law, not only in Egypt and Saudi Arabia but also in the West.

I have published two academic studies and nearly 100 articles about honor killings both in the West and in the Islamic world. How is an honor killing defined? An honor killing is a collaborative conspiracy carried out against one victim, usually a young girl, by her family of origin. Both her male and female relatives believe that their “honor” demands her death; that her “impure” behavior has shamed and destroyed her family’s reputation and community status. A battered wife—or one who dares leave her tormentor—may also be “honor murdered” by both her husband, assisted by his relatives, and to an extent, the wife’s relatives as well.

In the West, honor killings are a mainly Muslim-on-Muslim crime. Hindus and Sikhs perpetrate such killings but mainly in India, not in the West.

An honor killing is not the same as western domestic violence or western domestically violent femicide. Many honorable feminists disagree with me. They believe that honor killings are the same as western domestic violence. Understandably, such feminists fear that by singling out one group for behavior which may be common to all groups they will stigmatize the token group and minimize the suffering of all the other groups. They have a legitimate fear—and yet if, for reasons of “political correctness,” we fail to understand a crime, we will never be able to prevent or to prosecute it.

Honor killings are shameful, secretive; they are allowed to flourish and fester precisely because the perpetrators and their collaborators do not want them exposed. Instead, they blame the victim, and they blame those who expose it.

I began writing about honor killings in the United States, Canada, and Europe in 2004. My first study about such honor killings first appeared in 2009 in Middle East Quarterly, the second appeared there as well in 2010. In the most recent publication, I studied 230 victims who were honor—or “horror” murdered on five continents over a twenty year period in 172 separate incidents. (More than one person was murdered in some of the incidents).

A murder is a murder and must be treated as such. However, honor killings are not like western domestic violence or domestically violent femicide.

Read more at Fox News

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies, a Fellow at the Middle East Forum, the author of thousands of articles and of fifteen books, including “Women and Madness,” and “An American Bride in Kabul.” She archives her articles and may be reached through her website:www.phyllis-chesler.com

American Muslim Women Not Immune to Islamist Abuse

Muslim women2BY RYAN MAURO:

The women’s rights catastrophe in the Muslim world has reached America. Islamist groups and preachers in the U.S. are directly legitimizing the abuse of women or indirectly through advocacy of sharia law, and Muslims and non-Muslims, men and women, must hold them accountable.

Exhibit A is the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), a group based in California that fashions itself as an authoritative voice of matters of Islamic law. It issues fatwas, or religious declarations, in response to questions from Muslims seeking guidance. Its website has a fatwa bank that will shock anyone concerned about women’s rights.

fatwa published in 2010 justifies the practice of female genital mutilation:

“Some extremists from the West and their devout followers in the Muslim world would like to brand all circumcision as female genital mutilation (FGM) … all of their propaganda about female circumcision is no more than bigotry.”

One fatwa published in 2007 justifies marital rape:

“As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses.”

One reason AMJA advises Muslims against joining law enforcement is because they “might have to arrest a Muslim man whose wife said he ‘raped’ her or forced her.” Another reason is the possibility of “gender mixing.”

AMJA is not a fringe organization whose influence is limited to the walls of its headquarters.

Its Secretary-General is Salah As-Sawy. He is also a co-founder ofAmerican Open University and was its Vice President from 1995 to 2004. He is also a co-founder and President of Mishkah Islamic University of North America.

AMJA’s Fatwa Committee includes Dr. Muwaffak Al-Ghaylany, the President of the League of Imams in North America and Imam of the Islamic Center of Grand Blank City in Michigan.

Another AMJA Fatwa Committee member is Dr. Waleed Al-Maneese, Vice President of the Islamic University of Minnesota and president of the board of trustees of Dar al-Farooq Islamic Center. He is also on the board of trustees of the North American Imams Federation.

These are just four AMJA officials. Its website’s “Our Experts” section lists 47 preachers around the world, mostly residing in America. It also separately lists 41 AMJA members.

Then there are the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in America.

An online article titled “Does Islam Allow Wife Beating?” utilizes the wisdom of Muzammil Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America.

“[I]n some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife, but this is only applicable in extreme cases and it should be resorted to if one is sure it would improve the situation. However, if there is a fear that it might worsen the relationship or may wreak havoc on him or the family, then he should avoid it completely,” Siddiqi is quoted as saying.

Read more at Clarion Project

 

Islamic law is adopted by British legal chiefs

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills Photo: ALAMY

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills Photo: ALAMY

By , Religious Affairs Editor:

Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills.

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 recognised 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 Sharia principles, which recognise only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.

Nicholas Fluck, president of The Law Society, said the guidance would promote “good practice” in applying Islamic principles in the British legal system.

Some lawyers, however, described the guidance as “astonishing”, while campaigners warned it represented a major step on the road to a “parallel legal system” for Britain’s Muslim communities.

Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect women from religiously sanctioned discrimination, including from unofficial Sharia courts in Britain, said it was a “deeply disturbing” development and pledged to raise it with ministers.

“This violates everything that we stand for,” she said. “It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.”

The guidance, quietly published this month and distributed to solicitors in England and Wales, details how wills should be drafted to fit Islamic traditions while being valid under British law.

It suggests deleting or amending standard legal terms and even words such as “children” to ensure that those deemed “illegitimate” are denied any claim over the inheritance.

It recommends that some wills include a declaration of faith in Allah which would be drafted at a local mosque, and hands responsibility for drawing up some papers to Sharia courts.

The guidance goes on to suggest that Sharia principles could potentially overrule British practices in some disputes, giving examples of areas that would need to be tested in English courts.

Currently, Sharia principles are not formally addressed by or included in Britain’s laws.

However, a network of Sharia courts has grown up in Islamic communities to deal with disputes between Muslim families.

A few are officially recognised tribunals, operating under the Arbitration Act.

They have powers to set contracts between parties, mainly in commercial disputes, but also to deal with issues such as domestic violence, family disputes and inheritance battles.

But many more unofficial Sharia courts are also in operation.

Parliament has been told of a significant network of more informal Sharia tribunals and “councils”, often based in mosques, dealing with religious divorces and even child custody matters in line with religious teaching.

They offer “mediation” rather than adjudication, although some hearings are laid out like courts with religious scholars or legal experts sitting in a manner more akin to judges than counsellors.

One study estimated that there were now around 85 Sharia bodies operating in Britain. But the new Law Society guidance represents the first time that an official legal body has recognised the legitimacy of some Sharia principles.

Read more at The Telegraph

Also see:

  • ISLAMIC RULES TO BE ENSHRINED INTO ENGLISH AND WELSH LAW (breitbart.com) - The Law Society is officially a trade organisation for solicitors but in reality it has a much wider scope. It regulates Lawyers and can ‘strike them off’ its register, making it impossible to practise.

    Lawyers are required to pay a membership fee to the Society, whether they agree with its stance of things like Sharia or not.

    Conservative Lawyers took to facebook to complain to friends about the new rules, but none felt able to comment publicly because of the Law Society’s ability to end their careers.

Sounding the Alarm on Silent Jihad

By Andrew E. Harrod:

“There is broad bipartisan agreement that America is at risk,” declared former House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Pete Hoekstra via video at the March 6, 2014, National Security Action Summit (NSAC).  The “silent jihad” of Muslim Brotherhood (MB) affiliated groups described by Hoekstra at National Harbor’s Westin Hotel across the Potomac River from Washington, DC, should alarm all Americans.

Congressman Pete Hoekstra, former chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence

Congressman Pete Hoekstra, former chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence

In comparison to the “violent jihad” of groups like Al Qaeda, the MB “strategy is very, very different,” Hoekstra explained during the panel “The Muslim Brotherhood, the ‘Civilization Jihad’ and Its Enablers.”  MB groups “are going to use our laws, our customs…our freedom of speech, the values we profess…to become a cancer” in the United States.  MB supporters would seek “initially a tolerance of sharia law” that “begins the process of establishing of Islamism,” a process evident in certain European neighborhoods where sharia has become “de facto law.”  “Never forget the phrase:  The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” Hoekstra added when discussing cooperation across intra-Muslim sectarian divides such as between a Sunni Al Qaeda and a Shiite Islamic Republic of Iran.  “They ultimately share the same objective:  the destruction of the West.”

MB “Islamic supremacism” or Islamism “is not a fringe ideology” but is actually the “dynamic element of Islam” today, former first World Trade Center (WTC) bombing prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy observed in his video address.  Contrary to the “very Politically Correct interpretation of Islam” encountered among policymakers by McCarthy, Islamism is “not a hijacking of a doctrine” but rather Islam’s “most unalloyed form.”  Suffering numerous maladies, the Blind Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman prosecuted by McCarthy could only lead the 1993 WTC terrorists because “he was a master of sharia doctrine.”  Without understanding “sharia supremacism” as a “very active ideology” according to polls of Muslims worldwide, “we will never be able to protect ourselves.”

“You don’t know jack,” sharia expert Stephen Coughlin agreed on the panel, without understanding this MB “metanarrative.”  “It runs deep…the threat,” Coughlin noted concerning terms taken “verbatim” from the 7thcentury Pact of Umar recently imposed by Syrian jihadist groups upon Christians.  Yet Coughlin worried that the “enemy knows us better than us” in an America whose political and religious leaders often no longer properly understand their constitution and Judeo-Christian faith, respectively.

Subverting rule of law through “narrative control” is central to Islamist groups such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an international grouping of 57 (including “Palestine”) mostly majority-Muslim states.  “If you do not control the narrative, no matter what position you take, you will lose.”  In particular, “he who controls the First Amendment…controls the Constitution,” Coughlin warned in discussing the OIC’s 2005 Ten-Year Strategic Action Plan with its call for “Combating Islamophobia” via censorship.  The OIC would seek to interpret the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ Article 20 ban on incitement as prohibiting speech to which recipients react violently.  This is the “battered wife syndrome” of “if you say that, I am going to have to beat you up”

Read more at Religious Freedom Coalition

“Honor Diaries” is a Good Recruiting Tool

honor-diariesCitizen Warrior:

Many of us find it difficult to talk to people about Islamic doctrine and Sharia law. Some people resist listening to us or accepting what we say. A new film, first screened last fall at the Chicago International Film Festival — Honor Diaries — can help us reach more people by showing the viewer what’s being done in the Muslim world without creating resistance to the information.

The film doesn’t focus on Islam. Instead, it exposes what the “honor” system does.

The film profiles and interviews nine women who have been victims of an honor culture. The film is deliberately not anti-Muslim. It won’t cause your multicultural friends to turn away from the message. It will reach them where they can be reached: On the topic of the oppression and victimization of women. It’s a brilliant approach, and could help recruit more people into pushing back the spread of Sharia. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the Executive Producer of the film.

 

We urge you to share the movie — have a screening, and when it’s available on DVD, buy it and share it with your friends. Share the trailer on your Facebook page. Help this film become popular. Click here for a video about the film’s Global Screening Campaign. They are officially launching the film in March of this year (2014). March 8th is International Women’s Day and the Honor Diaries promoters are partnering with several organizations at events in New York, Los Angeles, London, etc.

The main website for the film is HonorDiaries.com. Watch a trailer, learn more about the film, and sign up for updates. The website describes the film this way: Honor Diaries is the first film to break the silence on “honor violence” against women and girls. Honor Diaries is more than a movie, it is a movement to save women and girls from human rights abuses — around the world and here in America.

The film features nine courageous women’s rights advocates with connections to Muslim-majority societies who are engaged in a dialogue about gender inequality.

These women, who have witnessed firsthand the hardships women endure, are profiled in their efforts to effect change, both in their communities and beyond.

The film gives a platform to exclusively female voices and seeks to expose the paralyzing political correctness that prevents many from identifying, understanding and addressing this international human rights disaster. Freedom of movement, the right to education, forced marriage, and female genital mutilation are some of the systematic abuses explored in depth.

Spurred by the Arab Spring, women who were once silent are starting to speak out about gender inequality and are bringing visibility to a long history of oppression. This project draws together leading women’s rights activists and provides a platform where their voices can be heard and serves as inspiration to motivate others to speak out.

In the Oregon Independent, Catherine DeRego says this about Honor Diaries:

Executive Producer Ayaan Hirsi Ali, born in Somalia, is an outspoken defender of women’s rights in Islamic societies. She is also the founder of the AHA Foundation created to “help protect and defend the rights of women in the West from oppression justified by religion and culture.”

Here’s what she says about the film:

“In male-dominated cultures, like Saudi Arabia, women and girls are treated like property, forced into marriage, and suffer female genital mutilation. In Honor Diaries, I am proud to join a courageous cast of female human rights activists to speak the truth; that culture is no excuse for abuse.”

The filmmakers are asking everyone in the community to host a screening of Honor Diaries on March 8, 2014, or any time this spring to “Celebrate the stories of 9 amazing women’s rights activists,” and to bring awareness to these crimes against Muslim women. In the United States, all women are entitled to the same liberties and freedoms as men have irrespective of religion. There is no gender inequality under our Constitution, nor should there be in any other nation. Violence hidden behind the veil of one’s religious teachings is a crime against all humanity under God. Let the American people stand for freedom as we always have and join this movement to help end the violence against Muslim women in this country and across the world.

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 http://shariahinamericancourts.com/

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.

Sincerely,

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

Committee

 

 

Pamela Geller On The Islamization of America in 2013

islam-america-afpBy Pamela Geller:

Since I wrote my book Stop the Islamization of America and established the Stop Islamization of America initiative of my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), we have seen increasing accommodation and submission to Islam in the United States. This past year was a particularly good year for Islamic supremacists, who are working furiously in this country to impose Sharia (Islamic law) — and in particular, the blasphemy laws under the Sharia.

The Islamic supremacist approach is stealthier here in the States than it is in Europe, where we see no-go zones, mass car burnings, etc., because Europe currently has a much bigger Muslim population than the U.S. does. More on Muslim immigration here.

That kind of aggression is in our future, for nothing is being done to prevent its coming here. The few of us who dare to speak against Sharia and jihad are blacklisted from the mainstream media’s major newspaper and broadcast outlets. Trimmers (those who soften the message about Islam or speak of “Islamism,” an artificial word making a distinction without a difference) and Islamic apologists are dusted off and trotted out to make some inane comment whenever the mainstream media cannot avoid covering a jihad news story (such as the Boston Marathon jihad bombing). But the effective true voices against Islamization, such as myself, Robert Spencer, Wafa Sultan, and Ibn Warraq are rarely seen these days.

It’s never been as bad as it is now, and we have never been proven so right as we were in 2013. In the U.S., in a survey released at the end of 2012, almost half of the Muslims in America said that they thought parodies of Muhammad should be subject to criminal prosecution. One in eight thought that insulting Islam should be a death penalty offense. Forty percent said that they shouldn’t have to obey U.S. laws, but should be subject only to Islamic law.

These findings should have come as no surprise; they weren’t much different from those of a May 2013 survey of Muslims worldwide. The survey showed that the harshest Sharia punishments enjoy broad support among Muslims the world over: “72% of Indonesian Muslims, 84% of Pakistani Muslims, 82% of Bengladeshi Muslims, 74% of Egyptian Muslims, and 71% of Nigerian Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies.” 85% of Muslims in Pakistan, 81% in Afghanistan, and 70% in Egypt supported the most brutal aspects of Sharia, such as amputating the hands of thieves. 86% of Muslims in Pakistan, 84% in Afghanistan, and 80% in Egypt supported stoning for adultery. 75% in Pakistan, 79% in Afghanistan, and 88% in Egypt favored executing those who leave Islam. “91% of Iraqi Muslims and 99% of Afghan Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies.”

And in America, wherever Islamic law and American law conflict, it is increasingly American law that gives way.

Read more at Breitbart

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of AtlasShrugs.com [new website at pamelageller.com] 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 ResistanceFollow her on Twitter here.

 

Islam: Love Is Not in the Air

love-valentine-astounding-love-tree-wallpaper-2013-728x500-300x206By Rachel Molschky:

Love may be in the air, but it is not allowed in the world of Islam. Several recent cases of public kissing and hugging have caused such a stir, one would think something truly tragic must be happening. But no, it is nothing more than a string of cases where people just want to be friendly.

Modesty and morality are fantastic traits to have, but the Islamic religious police have become so overzealous, what is called a “conservative culture” by the mainstream media, is really a stifling civilization fixated on suppressing any and every demonstration of love. This is apparently out of fear of contaminating their otherwise sparkling clean, healthy and moral society. Right? After all, rapes, tortures, honor killings, child marriages, female genital mutilation, slavery and constant human rights abuses in general, all point to a “moral and modest” society. Well, this is morality in a Muslim world.

Immorality in a Muslim world is kissing or hugging in public. Two Moroccan teenagers were recently arrested for kissing outside their high school and posting the photo on Facebook. A third boy was also arrested for taking the photo. Why were they all arrested? For being a danger to social order. No public kissing allowed in this Muslim society.

Though not all Moroccans are on board with such harsh rules. Dozens have protested in the form of a “kiss-in,” many taking pictures of their kisses and posting them on Twitter.

This is reminiscent of the kiss which took place in Turkey several months ago. A couple was caught on CCTV at the metro station kissing in protest of a new morality campaign put forth by the authorities in Ankara. On the loud speaker, kissing couples on the subway were getting reprimanded for not following the moral rules imposed by the transit authority, who had banned such public displays of affection. This in turn infuriated the Turkish public, and around 200 young people held a kissing protest, just as the Moroccans did after their controversial kissing episode.

Then the morality police arrived with their own counter-protest, the morality police of course being hardcore knife-carrying Islamists, screaming “Allahu Akbar” and forcing themselves in between the kissing couples. One young man was stabbed as a result because somehow kissing “deserves” the punishment of stabbing. Imagine wreaking such havoc with a simple kiss?

In an unrelated case over the summer, British teenager Dwayne Ward was stabbed while on vacation in Turkey for kissing a local girl in a bar. As a result he was hit over the head, stabbed 19 times, stripped naked and left for dead. The doctor who saved him said the 17 year-old was lucky to be alive.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

 

Stoning – the true horror

vlcsnap2010051522h40m48by Anne Marie Waters:

Recently I posted a blog about the treatment of women in many Islamic states and the fact that such treatment, if following the legal definition, amounts to a crime against humanity. In it, I linked to a document produced by Amnesty International entitled “How to stone someone to death“. The document describes in step-by-step detail, as outlined in the Iranian penal code, exactly how to bury someone up to their waist — or chest if female — and throw stones at their head until they die.

A few days after I had posted the blog, I re-read the document and felt it merited a blog of its own. Why? Because we need to admit, and face up to, the true horror of stoning. It is really happening. It is happening to real people and it is happening in the name of Islam. This is the truth — whether we like it or not.

Liars, apologists, the desperate to believe, and the interminably naive will deny it, or wish it not so, but no amount of wishing, denial, or apology erases objective fact, and these facts must be confronted.

If you don’t have time, or can’t stomach it, here are some of the main points of the document (though the pictures are worth looking at):

  1. The size of the stone is specified (with accompanying pictures) so that it will not be too small, or too big. Suffering is important.
  2. A man is buried to his waist and a woman to her chest. If he/she can get out of the hole, they can escape the punishment; so must make sure women cannot get out.
  3. If the stoning is based on confession, the judge will throw the first stone. If based on witness testimony, the witness will throw the first stone.
  4. Every 20 minutes or so, the stoning will stop to see if the condemned has yet died. If not, stoning continues (this is Article 23 by the way).
  5. It is not all bad news though: Article 16 states that the punishment should not “inflict torture, torment or mutilation of the condemned” and the stoning will be carried out “with ultimate calmness and without exercising violence”. I’m not sure what dictionary the Iranian regime reads but they’ve got a rather strange understanding of the words “torture” and “violence” – but then words mean whatever you want them to mean when you talk about Islam.

Earlier this year, Iran reviewed its penal code. Stoning as punishment for adultery was removed — that is until the Guardian Council got hold of it and promptly re-inserted this religious command. The Guardian Council is a group of unelected clerics who hold supreme power in Iran, and who ensure the compatibility of all legislation with sharia law.

Saudi Arabia also stones people to death, and the barbarism is swelling as sharia law advances. In the last few years, a 13 year old girl in Somalia, a soldier in Pakistan, and a young couple in Afghanistan have all been stoned to death. On all occasions, Islamic sharia law was cited as the justification. In fact, all of the countries which maintain stoning on their legal books are governed by sharia law.

Stoning is not mentioned in the Quran and because of this many people deny that it stems from Islamic teaching. This is dishonest at best. Stoning is not in the Quran but it is in the ahadith and for that reason, is part of sharia law. When Maryam Namazie and I debated a couple of Ahmadiyya Muslims at UCL in 2011, one of our opponents Ayyaz Mahmood insisted that stoning was not a part of Islam. His desperate to believe audience soaked it up, but the next day he was online admitting he had lied. The comments he made have since been removed, but Maryam has discussed them….

…Inayat Bunglawala was a high-profile member of the MCB for many years. When he was the assistant secretary general, Bunglawala was asked by journalist Joan Smith to condemn stoning for adultery. Bunglawala refused to do so, adding “you are asking me to condemn my prophet”. Bunglawala is not alone in the MCB in this regard. Suhaib Hasan has also misunderstood (Hasan is a prominent figure in the Islamic Sharia Council and blames women for the violence they face). He advocates stoning and once told us that “stoning will turn Britain in to a haven of peace“.

The ultra-moderate Swiss academic and lecturer at Oxford University Tariq Ramadan has debated this issue in France with Nicolas Sarkozy. The ultra-moderate Ramadan not only told us that his view is a minority one, but that this view only stretches as far as asking for a “moratorium”. In the debate Ramadan denied there was any violence against women in Islam, having just seconds earlier called for a “moratorium” on stoning for adultery. This is the 1984-esque double-speak we have come to expect…

Read More

Anne Marie Waters is the spokesperson of the One Law for All campaign and council member of the National Secular Society in the UK. She recently took part in the debate at Oxford Union on whether Islam is a peaceful religion. You can view her speech on youtube.

 

The Rise of European Islamo-Fascist Police

whitechapelgayfreezone-401x350By :

Here’s another Arabic word that both you and I would prefer not to have to know but probably should: mutaween. It means “religious police” or “morality police.” In Saudi Arabia it’s an officially constituted entity whose officers are fully empowered to arrest and punish anyone who violates sharia law – which, of course, can mean anything from committing various sexual acts to being caught taking a sip of water during Ramadan. The Saudi morality police made international headlines in March 2002 when they physically prevented dozens of girls from escaping a burning school in Mecca because they weren’t properly covered.

After that horrific incident, which resulted in fifteen deaths, people around the world congratulated themselves on not living in such a backward culture. And yet the Islamic morality police, far from being confined to Saudi Arabia – or even to the Muslim world – are an increasing presence in Europe and elsewhere.

To be sure, Islam’s moral cops in the Western world aren’t officially sanctioned. They aren’t even necessarily an organized force; many, if not most, of them are self-appointed monitors of public morality. And compared to their counterparts in Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and the Gaza Strip, they’re amateurs. But hey, you’ve got to start somewhere. Given time, and given enough leash by the real police and others in positions of public trust who prefer to look away from this deplorable state of affairs, these amateurs will increasingly resemble their Saudi models. In the meantime, they already wield real power. Authentic refugees from the Muslim world – non-Muslims or secular Muslims who fled to the West precisely to avoid such surveillance and control – are very aware of that power. So are an increasing number of natives of Western countries who live in largely Muslim neighborhoods – and who are increasingly being reminded that their ways of life conspicuously violate sharia strictures.

Consider the situation in Oslo, where things are bad, though not quite as severe (yet) as in many other European cities. Zahid Ali, an actor and stand-up comic, recalled in a 2010 interview that he’d been living with Oslo’s morality police for twenty years, ever since his early teens. “If he smoked on the street in Oslo,” reported NRK, “his mother, father, uncles, and aunts know about it before he got home” – because the news had been passed to them via Pakistani cab, bus, and tram drivers, a class of people whom Ali described as the “largest intelligence service” in Norway. Ali, now a familiar face on Norwegian television, said that members of the morality police in the heavily Muslim neighborhood of Grønland now routinely stopped him on the street to tell him: “I don’t like what you’re doing! I hate you! I’m going to kill you!” The threats, which he said had grown steadily worse over the previous five or six years, were usually delivered in Punjabi, and when Ali replied in Norwegian, his tormentors grew even angrier. (“If I answer in their language,” he explained, it means that “I’ve accepted their culture, accepted that they’re right.”) Ali said he took the threats seriously enough to avoid Grønland whenever possible.

Read more at Front Page

 

America Joins the Jihad

"Behead all those who insult the Prophet." The 'Istanbul Process', in which the State Dept. is taking a leading role, aims to achieve international-level legislation that would curtail free speech about Islam. (Source: WikiMedia Commons)

“Behead all those who insult the Prophet.” The ‘Istanbul Process’, in which the State Dept. is taking a leading role, aims to achieve international-level legislation that would curtail free speech about Islam. (Source: WikiMedia Commons)

by Clare M. Lopez:

Instead of presenting a firm defense of American principles based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the entire U.S. national security leadership simply caved in to this attempt to suborn the government. The FBI submissively complied with these jihadist demands, purging its anti-terrorist curriculum of hundreds of pages that an undisclosed group deemed “offensive to Muslims.” Next demand? The removal of HAMAS from the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organizations list.

It is not just that the United States government has aligned itself with the avowed vanguard of Islamic jihad — the Muslim Brotherhood [MB] — or committed American troops to battle (in Libya, and maybe soon in Syria) to ensure the victory of al-Qa’eda-linked militias. It is not just that whenever an opportunity has arisen, as in Iran in 2009, or pre-and-post revolutionary Egypt, or the Syrian civil war, the U.S. deliberately has chosen to side with the forces of jihad and shariah law and against the voices of civil society and genuine democracy.

The current U.S. administration has actually managed to flip from one side to the other, from “for the people in the streets” to “against the people in the streets,” as recently became evident in late June 2013, when protests mounted against the incompetent, oppressive regime of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. The U.S. Ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson, reportedly asked Coptic Pope Tawadros II, “to urge the Copts not to participate” — as well as other groups, apparently — in the demonstrations planned for June 30. There had been no such request reported two years earlier when Muslim Brotherhood supporters thronged Tahrir Square to demand that long-time U.S. ally President Hosni Mubarak step down. Nor did Ambassador Patterson pressure Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood government to return power to Hosni Mubarak, an American ally for three decades, after those street demonstrations prompted the Egyptian military to remove him from power in February 2011. She also did not protest even after Morsi seized power outright from that military command in August 2012. Patterson has, however, reportedly been pressuring the Egyptian military command to reinstate Morsi after it stepped in once again on July 3, 2013 to remove chaos from the streets by removing Morsi from office.

What these policies make painfully obvious that the United States of America has apparently abandoned the core principles of its Founding Fathers and capitulated to the forces of jihad and shariah.The vision of America as “Shining City on a Hill,” an exceptional nation whose leaders champion the natural rights of the individual against the liberty crushing oppression of totalitarian theocracy, for the moment at least, has been suborned to a different vision: the vision of an America as a force for harm in the world, that apologizes for its exceptionalism, abandons its friends and allies, emboldens its enemies, and seeks unilateral disarmament so as to better meet its president’s desire to be just another “citizen of the world.”

The years from 2009-2013 have witnessed the remaking of the map of the Middle East and North Africa [MENA] region. The driving forces behind the Islamic uprisings were powerful indeed: beginning no later than the summer of 2010, al-Qa’eda and the Muslim Brotherhood meshed their tactics and timing in a synchrony that previously had only characterized their identical Islamic ideology. Absent any serious groundwork over the preceding years by the U.S., whether official or by NGOs, to nourish genuine pro-democracy voices, once al-Qa’eda’s July 2010 Inspire magazine call for jihad had been met with MB Supreme Guide Muhammad Badi’sanswering declaration of war in the cause of Islam [jihad] in late September 2010, and al-Azhar had provided thefatwa [Islamic religious edict] of approval for offensive jihad in January 2011, there was no one capable of standing effectively against the tidal wave of popular pro-shariah sentiment. Perhaps no one could have held back that long suppressed desire for Islamic Law.

But the U.S. did not even try. To the contrary, the current administration consistently and repeatedly appeared to respond eagerly to the calls for revolution from the Muslim Brotherhood’s senior Islamic scholar, Yousef al-Qaradawi. When al-Qaradawi said that Mubarak had to go, the U.S. waited a whole three days before throwing America’s key ally in the Middle East for over three decades under the bus. When al-Qaradawi called for Libyan rebels to kill Muammar Qaddafi (so the al-Qa’eda jihadis in his jails could get out and join the revolution), the U.S. led the Western military campaign that brought al-Qa’eda, the MB, and chaos to Libya. And when al-Qaradawi issued a call for jihad in Syria, in early June 2013, the U.S. quickly issued an invitation to Abdullah bin Bayyah (al-Qaradawi’s vice president at the International Union of Muslim Scholars), who told an Al-Jazeera reporter that, “We demand Washington take a greater role in [Syria].” It took the U.S. less than one week after al-Qaradawi’s fatwa to announce authorization of stepped-up military aid to the al-Qa’eda-and-Brotherhood-dominated Syrian rebels. The White House announcement came just a single day after bin Bayyah met with National Security and other senior administration officials.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

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