South Carolina House Passes Bill Excluding Sharia Law From State Courts



Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Jan. 28, 2016:

The South Carolina House has passed a bill blocking Islamic sharia law from being recognized or approved in the state, after years of debate over similar legislation.

The legislation voted upon was explained as “A bill to amend the code of laws of South Carolina … so as to prevent a court or other enforcement authority from enforcing foreign law including, but not limited to, Sharia Law in this state from a forum outside of the United States or its territories under certain circumstances.”

On Thursday, the legislation passed with 68 for the bill and 42 opposed.

Sharia law is the legal and political system mandated in the Koran and other Islamic texts. It include laws governing religious practice, such as praying and ritual washing. But sharia also rules what Westerners see as non-government social practices — divorce, child-rearing, free-speech, clothing or sexual behavior, for example — and it also rules government responses to crimes, such as theft and murder.

Sharia law relegates women and non-Muslims to a lesser status, and grants men enormous authority over wives, daughters and sons. It allows for the primitive treatment of women and non-Muslims, and allows fierce punishment — sometimes, “honor killings” by fathers — for refusing to complying with sharia mandates.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Chip Limehouse. He told Breitbart News following the bill’s passage:

“This goes to demonstrate that the South Carolina House of Representatives is committed to preserving and protecting the American way of life here in South Carolina.”

“Sharia Law has been used as a defense in American courtrooms,” he adds. “We are working towards making that defense not an option for radical extremists from any country.”

“In South Carolina, we’ve had cases where people have tried to use [the rules of] Sharia Law as a defense, and we are speaking very clearly from the South Carolina House,” Limehouse said. “Shariah Law can not and will not be used as a legal defense in the state of South Carolina.”

Because the bill was passed at the beginning of the current legislative session, Rep. Limehouse said he was optimistic that the Senate would have enough time to pass the bill. In order for the bill to become law, it must now be passed by the South Carolina State Senate and signed by Governor Nikki Haley.

Tea Party and conservative grassroots organizations are credited with initiating the movement to ban sharia rules through the state legislatures. Conservative leaders Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Michele Bachmann have publicly advocated for the need to enact nation-wide legislation against the threat of sharia.

Underground sharia courts operate in Muslim communities throughout Europe and alsoin the United States. Last year, Breitbart Texas reported that a “voluntary” sharia court had already been established in Texas.

Several countries in Europe, including the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, have many underground sharia courts within migrant communities. In the U.K, the government has formally deputized at least one sharia court to decide non-criminal issues among people who agree to use the court, even as public concerns rise that immigrant women are socially pressured to accept the courts’ authority

U.S. opponents of sharia courts point to Europe for evidence that western democracies can gradually cede more de-facto legal authority to self-segregating Muslim communities, so enabling the self-segregation of Muslim communities into no-go zones within cities.

Several states–including Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina South Dakota, and Tennessee–have passed “foreign law” bans against sharia. More than a dozen other states are currently considering similar legislation.

American Laws for American Courts in GOP Platform (video)

The Republican National Convention adopted an amendment in the spirit of American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation to their platform

Related articles:


Jihadist Infiltration

By David Meir-Levi at Frontpage:

Judging from the progress that anti-Israel “Lawfare” and pro-Shari’a movements have made in advancing the “Palestinian Cause” and Shari’a compliant programs in a distressingly vast array of our society’s institutions over the past decade, one must conclude that the Muslim jihadist forces working to infiltrate our society are winning.

The most obvious peril arises from terrorist infiltration. Terrorists identified as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and Iranian agents continue to enter our country via Mexico as illegal immigrants.  Yet, almost a decade ago the present writer and others published analyses of the danger posed to our country’s security by such infiltration.  If these agents were not bent on doing us harm, they could easily enter our country via normal ports of entry.  The fact that they disguise themselves as Mexicans and try to sneak past our border guards is a very good indication that they are here on jihadist missions and know that if they were to try to enter the USA via normal channels, they would be identified as wanted terrorists.  Once in the USA, they easily disappear into the American Muslim community, undocumented, untraceable, invisible and unstoppable.

The problem on our southern border has grown only worse since then, with continued jihadist entry via Mexico and the new alliance between Iran and Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.  The Iran-Venezuela connection and Iran’s quest for deployable WMDs create the threat of a nuclear armed Venezuela under Iranian influence holding the USA hostage with nuclear-armed missiles having in their cross-hairs all of the southern USA from San Diego to Sarasota.

Expert witnesses reporting to congress have indicated that Iran has active agents, both Hezbollah and Iranian government operatives, in the USA:  sleeper cells awaiting orders while conducting surveillance in preparation for future attacks.  While some pundits are convinced that Iran does not plan to attack the USA on its home front, the operative word that they ignore is “yet.” Iran has successfully laid the groundwork for future terrorism inside the USA with Hezbollah and other Iranian terrorist agents primed, ready and invisible.

Less obvious, but no less perilous, is the quiet, gradual and peaceful infiltration of Muslim operatives and their supporters into our social, legal, educational and political systems under the guise of legitimate democratic activism in the form of the Divestment movement, the  BDS movement, the “One-State Solution” proponents, lawyers implementing “Lawfare,”  those who seek to legitimize Sharia law, and a host of socio-political organizations including “Jewish Voice for Peace” and other “Peace and Justice for Palestine” groups.

The Divestment movement, which sought to pressure institutions (mostly churches and universities) to divest their retirement funds from companies doing business with or in Israel, began more than twenty years ago and soon became a nation-wide phenomenon gaining support and followers in churches, on campuses, and in a variety of other institutions holding substantial retirement funds.  While few assets were actually divested, the real purpose of the movement was achieved: create a new podium from which to demonize Israel and by means of which to grab public attention and mainstream media coverage.  Over time interest in divestment waned, and presenters found themselves preaching to the choir.  So the movement morphed into” BDS,” boycotts, divestment, sanctions.  By including calls for boycott and sanctions, the proponents of this movement created a wider panoply of audiences, since boycotts and sanctions do not need investment funds that can be divested.  And as was the case with the divestment movement, the BDS movement cut a swath through college campuses enjoying large audiences on accommodating campuses with little opposition.  Later, as audience interest diminished and presenters found themselves again preaching to the choir, the forces waging the campus war against Israel re-organized to create the newest front, the “One-State Solution” movement.  Starting at the top, “One-State Solution” conferences were recently held at the University of Pennsylvania and at Harvard University, schools of international repute whose status lent credence and legitimacy to this new venue for Israel-bashing.   None of this could have happened were there not already on campuses a cadre of willing enablers, student and faculty activists and complicit or complacent administrative leadership, who energetically support these anti-Israel and anti-Jewish efforts.

The advance of Shari’a law displays a similar trajectory. From modest beginnings in the USA and Canada as local Muslims petitioned to have family disputes adjudicated by a Muslim religious court, Shari’a law and Shari’a finance have now become institutionalized.  Thanks to Justice Elena Kagan and Professor Noah Feldman at Harvard, and other promoters of Shari’a as an alternative form of jurisprudence compatible with American secular law, we are witness to a gradually growing number of states accommodating the institutionalization of Shari’a courts into American legal venues; and we see the struggle of Shari’a supporters to prevent or overturn state-sponsored regulations that would exclude Shari’a from American law.  Facilitating this struggle to give Shari’a credence, legitimacy, and legal valence are a host of lay folk, cheer leaders for Shari’a, including some rabbis, encouraging our legislators to grant Shari’a legal status in America.  The dire and existential peril that Shari’a poses to women and Jews, to all Americans, to America, and to Western Civilizations has been adumbrated elsewhere.  Suffice it to say here that much of Shari’a legislation is diametrically opposed to our society’s cornerstone freedoms and to our fundamental concept of all citizens’ equality before the law.

The “Lawfare” movement presents another new front in the infiltration of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish and anti-American forces into our legal system.  The present writer attended the conference in San Francisco in 2010 where academics and lawyers enumerated the ways and means whereby American courts could be turned into staging grounds for anti-Israel lawsuits which could later be used as precedents for future legal battles against Israel, Israelis, and any legal or natural persons supporting Israel.  Then it is only one step from legal decisions to legislation.

The proliferation of the organizations such as the “Jewish Voice for Peace” and numerous other groups claiming to be “for peace and justice in Palestine” on campuses, churches, world-wide Christian organizations, and on the grass-roots level of local communities, is another form of infiltration.  Almost without exception, these groups promote the Arab side of the Israel-Arab conflict, ignore the reality of Israel’s need for defense against vicious genocidal terrorism, and act as mouthpieces for Arab anti-Israel propaganda.  Rank and file membership may be dominated by benighted do-gooders whom Lenin would have classified as “useful idiot,” but leaders and funders know that the real purpose of these groups is to create an almost limitless supply of new venues for Israel-bashing and for the dissemination of Arab lies about Israel and the “Palestinians.”

All of the above are aggressively agitating in the here-and-now to convince us that Israel is evil and the “poor Palestinians” are victims of that evil.  But there is also the long-range battle for American hearts and minds.  From Harvard to high schools our education system has become the target of Arab revisionism.  Decades of Arab oil money pouring into our universities and colleges is now well documented.  That oil money’s influence goes well beyond the university classroom.  Saudi and other Arab largesse has targeted universities with Title VI federal funding, funding which supports university outreach programs that teach our children about the beauties and blessings of Islam.

A Saudi-owned publishing house in New Mexico churns out curriculum supplements which are aggressively marketed to public and private school teachers from kindergarten to college.  Using a well-honed strategy of deceit and tactic of serial lying, this mendacious material not only demonizes Israel but also whitewashes Muslim history by purging it of its jihadist imperialism, and exonerates Islam by ignoring the religious and gender apartheid inherent in its doctrine of Muslim and male supremacy.

Once the invasions and conquests and murders and massacres and genocides of 1,400 years of Muslim jihad are magically retold as nothing more than a gentle religious revivalism; and 1,400 years of religious repression and discrimination are recast with literary sleight of hand as a Golden Age of religious tolerance; then our younger generations can be convinced that the current Muslim war against Israel and Western Civilization is really justified self-defense against evil Zionist land theft and brutal western imperialism.

This year’s sophomore is next year’s Senator.

If we do not stop this tsunami of infiltration, we will lose this war.

Ten questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations

By Brigitte Gabriel, Frank Gaffney, Jr.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has launched a propaganda campaign attacking a state legislative initiative that is designed to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, including Muslims.

That initiative is known as American Laws for American Courts (ALAC).

CAIR claims this bill would have the opposite effect – infringing upon Muslims’ and others’ right to freedom of religion. CAIR’s real motivation, however, is not to safeguard the U.S. Constitution, but rather to promote the insinuation here of Shariah, a totalitarian Islamic political-military-legal doctrine. Shariah requires and enforces discrimination against women, children, homosexuals, atheists, members of other religions such as Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians, as well as Muslims who repudiate the dictates of that doctrine.

A review of the actual language of the American Laws for American Courts legislation shows that CAIR is deliberately and falsely characterizing it as anti-Shariah. As we shall see, ALAC is not targeted at either Shariah or Islam. Unlike a constitutional amendment to the State of Oklahoma’s constitution that was approved in 2010 by seventy percent of the voters, neither term is mentioned anywhere in ALAC’s bill language. (A complete comparison can be found here: .)

ALAC’s very different approach was vindicated when the Council on American Islamic Relations succeeded in challenging the Oklahoma amendment on the grounds that it singled out Shariah law and therefore was ruled unconstitutional. Instead, ALAC is crafted to prevent the infringement in our court system on individual liberties by any foreign laws or legal doctrines, a phenomenon known as “transnationalism.”

This is made necessary since America has unique values of liberty that do not exist in many foreign legal systems. Among those guaranteed rights and privileges are: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, due process and equal protection under the law, the right to privacy and the right to keep and bear arms.

Unfortunately, increasingly, foreign laws and legal doctrines that would restrict or deny these liberties are finding their way into U.S. court cases, thanks largely to the rulings of transnationalist judges. In some instances, these judges are permitting the use of Shariah to adjudicate disputes on their dockets.

The appeal of the American Laws for American Courts model for preventing such intrusions of unconstitutional foreign laws is evident from the fact that it has been enacted to date in three states: Tennessee in April 2010, in Louisiana in June 2010 and in Arizona in May 2011. And ALAC’s fundamental constitutionality is evident in the fact that neither CAIR nor anyone else has filed a legal challenge to any of these three laws, let alone succeeded in getting ALAC struck down.

Knowing that a legal challenge to American Laws for American Courts is hopeless, CAIR has stooped to launching dishonest and misleading attacks against an initiative designed to preserve our freedoms.

How, one might ask, can an American organization oppose legislation that is crafted to form a reinforcing bulwark to protect our most fundamental freedoms against foreign laws that do not respect them? The answer lies, in part, with the nature of the Council on American Islamic Relations.

The Department of Justice has named CAIR as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood (and its Palestinian franchise: the officially designated terrorist group, Hamas). Evidence introduced in the Holy Land Foundation trial established that the Brotherhood’s mission in America is “a kind of civilization jihad…in destroying Western civilization from within” by our hands. Using our courts to undermine our liberties and Constitution “from within” is one of the most important and effective techniques for advancing this subversive civilization jihad. Two federal courts have refused to strike CAIR’s designation as a Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas co-conspirator and/or joint venturer.


  • CAIR has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism finance trial in U.S. history, the 2008 United States vs. Holy Land Foundation case in Dallas, Texas.
    No fewer than four CAIR leaders have been convicted of felonies, including terrorism.
    CAIR has a memorandum of understanding with the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, the world’s most powerful multinational organization and, with 57 members, its largest – second only to the United Nations. The OIC is, like CAIR, dedicated to the imposition of Shariah doctrine and the criminalization of any “blasphemy” against Shariah law.
  • The FBI has terminated relations with CAIR as a matter of policy.
  • The IRS has reportedly revoked the non-profit status of CAIR’s national organization.
  • CAIR is being sued for engaging in fraud against several of its members.

With this important background on the nature of the Council on American Islamic Relations, let’s analyze its critique of American Laws for American Courts by reviewing in the boxes below key passages from the legislation. (The entire model act can be found here:

Such a review prompts ten questions concerning CAIR’s opposition to this bill and we will address each, in turn.

ALAC: Purpose

“AN ACT to protect rights and privileges granted under the United
States or [State] Constitution.”

Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations:

1. Why is CAIR opposing legislation designed to protect the rights and privileges granted under our U.S. and state constitutions? What is CAIR’s motivation? Do they think Muslims either don’t deserve or do not want to enjoy the same constitutional rights to which all citizens of this country are entitled? Or is CAIR trying to establish that Muslims are entitled to such rights (notably, freedom of religion and freedom of speech) but other people deemed inferior, for whatever reason (for example, for being “infidels”) may not be allowed the same rights as Muslims?

2. Exactly which constitutional rights protected by ALAC does CAIR find offensive or “Islamophobic”? (This made-up term is used by Shariah’s adherents to brand anything or anyone who “gives offense” to their doctrine or its enforcers.) The most important non-Brotherhood Muslim organization in this country, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition, has already endorsed American Laws for American Courts when it was introduced in Michigan. ( Does CAIR consider them “Islamophobic,” as well?

ALAC: Finding

“The [general assembly/legislature] finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.”

Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations:

3. Does CAIR dispute that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes it “the supreme law of the land” and, therefore, that all other laws, including Shariah, must be subordinated to it where there is a conflict? There are, of course, myriad areas in which Shariah is at odds with constitutional rights (e.g., women’s ability to divorce, inherit property, enjoy custody of their children and engage or refuse to engage in sexual relations, homosexuality, freedom of expression, etc.) In such instances, would CAIR have the Constitution defer to Shariah?

4. Which rights does CAIR wish to have violated by or subordinated to foreign law? Does it favor unequal treatment for and/or brutalizing of women, homosexuals, apostates, Jews and others in accordance with Shariah?

ALAC: Definitions

“As used in this act, “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.”

Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations:

5. How can this definition be construed as applying uniquely to Shariah? In fact, it applies equally to all foreign laws. Period. What is more, it does not preclude the application of any foreign law, including Shariah – except insofar as it violates constitutional rights or state public policy.

6. In view of ALAC’s key definition, isn’t it disingenuous and misleading to depict American Laws for American Courts as an “anti-Shariah” bill? CAIR is certainly mischaracterizing ALAC in the campaign that it and other Muslim Brotherhood fronts have been mounting against such legislation. Given the clarity of the language in question, one can only conclude that these Brotherhood groups are doing so knowingly for the purpose of deceiving the American people.

7. Which “foreign law, legal code, or system” does CAIR wish to see incorporated into American constitutional law? Is CAIR seeking the imposition of all foreign laws, even where they violate the U.S. Constitution, or just Shariah?

ALAC: Operative Provision

“Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.”

Questions for the Council on American Islamic Relations:

8. What legal authority is the Council on American Islamic Relations defending by its attack on American Laws for American Courts? Specifically, we need to know: What does CAIR prefer by way of a court, arbitration panel, tribunal or administrative agency that bases its decisions on a code that would not grant our fundamental liberties, rights and privileges?

Clearly, as we have seen, ALAC has been drafted in order to provide guidance so that legal disputes in our courts do not result in the violation of the fundamental liberties, rights and privileges enshrined in the U.S. and our state Constitutions.

Thanks to the guarantees incorporated into the Constitution, no U.S. citizen or legal resident should be denied such liberties. Ensuring that is the case, however, is why ALAC is needed, particularly with respect to women and children. These communities have been identified by international human rights organizations as the principal victims of discriminatory foreign laws.

9. Why does CAIR oppose an inclusive bill extending civil liberties and due process to all citizens and legal residents, given the proven cases of discrimination, especially against Muslim women resulting from too much deference to foreign laws?

There is a certain irony at work here, as shown in an analysis of a sample of legal cases in the United States where Shariah has been successfully introduced to resolve the matter ( The most frequent victims of the trampling of constitutional rights by foreign legal codes in actual cases in the United States, are Muslim women and their families.

That’s bad enough. But CAIR’s stance suggests that it seeks to relegate all women – not just Muslim ones – to an inferior status incompatible with the equal rights they are entitled to enjoy under the U.S. Constitution.

ALAC: Explicit Exclusions

“This subsection shall not apply to a church, religious corporation, association, or society, with respect to the individuals of a particular religion regarding matters that are purely ecclesiastical, to include, but not be limited to, matters of calling a pastor, excluding members from a church, electing church officers, matters concerning church bylaws, constitution, and doctrinal regulations and the conduct of other routine church business, where 1) the jurisdiction of the church would be final; and 2) the jurisdiction of the courts of this State would be contrary to the First Amendment of the United States and the Constitution of this State.”

Question for the Council on American Islamic Relations:

10. Why is CAIR opposed to preserving and protecting religious freedom for all Americans, as spelled out explicitly in the American Laws for American Courts act?

CAIR falsely maintains that American Laws for American Courts trespasses against religious freedom. That assertion is laid bare as patently dishonest by reading this important passage from the model American Laws for American Courts legislation: Far from denying religious freedom, American Laws for American Courts expressly champions and protects that liberty guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and by state constitutions adopted pursuant to it.

CAIR and its allies have been known to claim that American Laws for American Courts would interfere with canon law or Jewish law. As the plain language of the bill makes clear, this is patently untrue. Indeed, prominent interfaith leaders – including experts in the legal codes of their respective faiths – have endorsed American Laws for American Courts, including Rabbi Aryeh Spero, Rabbi Jonathan Hausman, J.D. and the Reverend Canon J. Philip Ashey, Esq. (See the Interfaith letter of support for American Laws for American Courts at

In short, American Laws for American Courts is a necessary and constitutional initiative that protects our fundamental freedoms against all foreign legal regimes that would threaten them. Representations to the contrary, particularly from groups like CAIR that are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization seeking our destruction, should be seen for what they are – fraudulent deceptions – and rejected in the most effective possible way: by ensuring that every state in the union joins Tennessee, Louisiana and Arizona in enacting American Laws for American Courts.

Brigitte Gabriel is an international terrorism analyst and the Founder and President of ACT! for America, the nation’s largest grassroots citizen action network dedicated to preserving national security and combating the threat of radical Islam. She is the author of two New York Times Best Sellers, Because they Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America; and They Must Be Stopped: Why we must defeat radical Islam and how we can do it.

Frank Gaffney is the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. The Center is a not-for-profit, non-partisan educational corporation established in 1988. Under Mr. Gaffney’s leadership, the Center has been nationally and internationally recognized as a resource for timely, informed and penetrating analyses of foreign and defense policy matters.

Originally published at:

Sharia Victory in Florida Threatens Human Rights

By JanSuzanne Krasner at American Thinker:

A controversy over the defeat of Florida legislation that would have restricted state courts from considering foreign laws as part of legal decisions has intensified.  This is after a Tampa judge ruled that two opposing Muslim parties have their dispute settled under Islamic sharia law “pursuant to the Quran” in spite of the fact that one Muslim group did not want to do this…and the Florida Appellate Court denied the petition to appeal the judge’s ruling.

The proposed law, SB 1360, had been opposed jointly and lobbied against by both CAIR and the ADL.  It drew the passionate attention of many in the Florida Jewish community, where opinions seem to be drawn on party lines.  These groups erroneously argue that this ban will actually put other religious laws in jeopardy as well, especially Jewish religious law, called Halakhah.

Abraham Foxman, Director of the ADL, claims that passage of the law would have been “harmful to the religious freedom of all Floridians, including observant Jews.”

He and others are seriously mistaken.  The defeated law and others proposed by several state legislators are meant to make it clear that disputes heard in religious alternative courts must not contradict or interfere with the administration, application, or exercise of state and federal constitutional law, and either party has the right to immediate redress in the civil secular court system for enforcement of those rights.  These proposed legal guidelines do not prohibit the use of other religious laws — only sharia law.

In a recent Florida Jewish newspaper article, the publisher emeritus made an argument in defense of sharia courts in America based on the existence of other religious courts.  He believes that sharia law is constitutionally compatible, just like Halakhah and Canon Law and is more economical, and that banning it is simply unconstitutional, discriminating against one religious group over others.

This position is substantiated by comparing sharia law to Jewish law, noting the similarity of the two.  But this editor falls short in his argument by avoiding a comparison of the serious differences that exist in the laws of the Quran, which sharia legislates.  Like others espousing this position, the editor presents an incomplete picture and uses it to belittle those who take an opposing viewpoint.  It is most important to include the inequalities inherent in Islamic law in any discussion of this nature because they expose the unconstitutionality and incompatibility of sharia law within the American justice system.

American citizens must be allowed to question, without being called “Islamophobes” or “bigots,” the inherent threat of Islamic sharia ideology, disguised as only religious law, before it endangers our American society.  The political correctness of this constitutional argument actually blinds one to the dangers of some Islamic laws…specifically those that pertain to women and children and the punishments rendered for breaking these laws.  It is clearly the dissimilarities that distinguish other religious laws from the unconstitutionality of sharia laws.

Opponents to SB 1360 offered as proof of the wisdom of their position that religious laws are already being used in local civil courts in determining judgments regarding family matters, dietary requirements, and business disagreements…and they point out that nothing disastrous has happened.  The guidelines applied to these decisions are in line with, and enforceable by, the American court system.  But it is also necessary that both parties agree to participate in a religious court rather than a secular court and that they both agree that the decision of the arbitrator is binding.

On the face of this, as the editor pointed out, is there is nothing “sinister” about religious courts settling family, dietary, and financial disputes, especially with this practice already having gone on for years in arbitration courts.  Some even wonder why anyone would question our Constitution’s and appellate courts’ ability to prevent the impact by Islamism in America.

The “sinister” fact is that Islamic ideology makes Muslim women and children powerless, intimidated by the obscene rules of a male-dominated society.  Sharia law requires women to present practically impossible proof of their innocence, such as eyewitnesses to being raped.  A woman who seeks justice for this crime, files for divorce, or desires child custody, or a child that strays into Western ways, has hardly any means to win in a sharia court.

Read the rest…

Sharia in the U.S.? Florida’s proposed ban draws attacks from Muslims


Florida state lawmakers are enduring attacks from an organization many call a “terrorist front group”  who oppose legislation aimed at banning the use of Sharia law — the religious doctrine that’s applied by Islamists in their own countries — from courtrooms throughout Florida, claims a non-profit, public-interest group that investigates and exposes government corruption and crime.

Although the bill targets Sharia law, the legislation seeks to prohibit the application of any foreign law, code or system in legal cases, especially in family court. It was introduced after a state appeals court allowed a county judge in central Florida to consider “ecclesiastical Islamic law” to decide a civil case involving a mosque. 

As a Florida state House committee considers the bill this week, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a national organization that serves as the U.S. front for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, is blasting it as an attempt to demonize Islam, states the Judicial Watch blog.  

If the measure passes it will also restrict religious freedom, according to CAIR.

A few years ago CAIR pressured a south Florida county’s transit agency to drop bus advertisements considered by the group to be “misleading and bigoted” against Muslims. CAIR asserted that the ads created a campaign of hatred and intolerance because they gave the false impression that Muslims are “trapped” in their religion with no means of “escape,” thus facing certain death.  

CAIR bills itself as a Muslim civil rights organization but top FBI counterterrorism chiefs, such as the late John O’Neill, describe it as an entity that promotes and finances terrorism.

According to a report from the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland  Security: “The Council on American-Islamic Relations and its employees have combined, conspired, and agreed with third parties, including, but not limited to, the Islamic Association for Palestine, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Global Relief Foundation, and foreign nationals hostile to the interests of the United States, to provide material support to known terrorist organizations, to advance the Hamas agenda, and to propagate radical Islam.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, and certain officers, directors, and employees, have acted in support of, and in furtherance of, this conspiracy, said the Senate report.

M. Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim who challenges groups such as CAIR, in an NYPD-used training video The Third Jihad details how CAIR was created shortly after a secret 1993 meeting in Philadelphia involving members of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee. Their goal was to lead opposition to the 1993 Oslo accords and generate support for Hamas, the terrorist organization that now runs the government in Gaza.  

Read the rest…

Jim Kouri, CPP, the fifth Vice President and Public Information Officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, has served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.

AFDI/SIOA Pro-Freedom Anti-Sharia Billboards and Radio in Kansas City

Atlas Shrugs:

The war in the information battle-space heats up.

In an effort to stop the protection of constitutional liberties, the Muslim Brotherhood-linked ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America) has kicked off its national sharia disinformation campaign in Kansas City. They are running billboards and radio ads in an attempt to deceive and mislead the American people on the sharia. ICNA is a Muslim Brotherhood group, according to a captured internal document of the Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood groups in America are trying to norm Sharia, mainstream Sharia. The Muslim Brotherhood group ICNA needs to lie to Americans about Sharia and advance a false narrative about the most extreme and radical ideology on the face of the earth.

We are on the forefront of this fight. Our billboards are going up in Kansas City this week, and our radio ads will be breaking this week as well. We will be running billboards and radio ads in major citys where foreign law prohibition legislation is under consideration, to counteract the Muslim Brotherhood pro-sharia campaign. Muslim Brotherhood groups, you are on notice. To paraphrase Churchill, we shall go on to the end, we shall fight in Congress, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength on the airwaves, we shall defend our freedoms, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the billboards, we shall fight on the radio, we shall fight in our protests and in the streets, we shall fight on the hill; we shall never surrender.

This very simple and clear cut legislation should be the proverbial no-brainer. And yet the fact that it is being met by so much resistance, both overt and covert, indicates how very needed it is.

How can anyone oppose a law that seeks to prevent foreign laws from undermining fundamental constitutional liberties? We all accept that state and federal constitutional rights to a jury trial in CIVIL cases can be waived almost by default (thus two parties agreeing to be bound by German or French law where there is no jury trial right in a civil matter) and would not be affected by the bill, since the jury trial right is per the law waived by default.

Here is the copy of our 30 second radio ads:

Subversive groups will tell you that Sharia is just private religious law. They’re lying. Sharia is a political system that contravenes American freedoms in numerous ways. Sharia asserts authority over non-Muslims. It mandates discrimination, harassment, and second-class status for both non-Muslims and women. It denies free speech, which we’re seeing in America increasingly under the guise of “hate speech laws.” How can anyone support Sharia when its undermines our fundamental Constitutional liberties? Look for our billboards on I-70.

Also see my previous posts:

Counter billboard initiative takes on promotion of sharia law in KC

Kansas City Target of Sharia Campaign