Montana Democrats Vote Against Bill Banning Sharia Law, Call It ‘Repugnant’

Clare Lopez: “There’s a real misconception out there about these ALAC & ALAC-type bills – ALAC stands for ‘American Laws for American Courts’ – it doesn’t ban any law outright, not French law or Chinese law or Singaporean law or shariah – it says if ever there’s a conflict in US Courts w/US Constitutional law, then American law will prevail. Very common sense, totally inoffensive to anyone.”

Breitbart, by Ben Kew, March 31, 2017:

Democrats in Montana have opposed a bill banning the use of foreign law in its state courts on the grounds that such legislation would target Muslims.

Senate Bill 97, introduced by Keith Regier (R-Kalispell) bans the application of foreign law in Montana’s courts, with the debate particularly focused on Sharia Law, a form of Islamic law typically used in the Middle East.

Although the bill passed on party lines by 56-44, Democrats claimed it was designed to target Muslim communities.

“I think it sends a dangerous message to minority groups both here living in our state and wanting to come visit our state, just merely on the fact that you may be different,” said Rep. Shane Morigeau, D-Missoula, while debating the bill. “I truly believe this law is repugnant. I believe this is not who we are as Montanans.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Ellie Hill Smith (D-Missoula) proposed a failed amendment to the bill to include a ban on both Sharia Law and the Law of Moses, in order to “show the state of Montana that it is not just about Islamic Law.”

“The courts have said that laws that single out certain religions violate the First Amendment,” Smith said, claiming that it was “peppered with anti-Muslim bigotry.”

Another Democrat, Rep. Laurie Bishop (D-Livingston) urged legislators “not to forget the roots of this bill,” adding that “our children are watching.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Brad Tschida (R-Missoula) said the bill was an attempt to push back against a “constitution [that] is constantly under assault.”

Bills specifically targeting Sharia Law have passed in states such as North Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Tennessee. The bill will now be passed on to Gov. Steve Bullock (D) for signature or veto.

You can follow Ben Kew on Facebook, on Twitter at @ben_kew, or email him at

‘American Laws for American Courts’ Resolution Passed in North Texas City

Sharia-Law-for-AmericaBreitbart, by MERRILL HOPE, March 20, 2015:

On Thursday evening, March 19, the Irving City Council passed a resolution that expressed support for Texas House Bill 562, a proposed piece of legislation that is scheduled for its first public hearing in Austin next week. It is a bill that has been nicknamed American Laws for American Courts.

Irving’s symbolic nod was close, won only in a vote of 5 to 4. The resolution was one heated agenda item, too. It brought out an estimated 500 residents from the City of Irving in the Dallas area. The local, large Muslim population also turned out at City Hall, complaining that HB 562 was discriminatory to them because the bill codifies that US and Texas laws supersede foreign laws.

It is something that should make perfect sense — that the laws of the United States and Texas, and their respective constitutions supersede foreign law. HB 562 was authored by state Rep. Jeff Leach (R-Plano) and was coauthored by 34 other state legislators. One of them, state Rep. Matt Rinaldi (R-Irving) spoke on behalf of the bill at the meeting.

The Muslim community’s point of contention with the City’s resolution was that they felt targeted by HB 562 because of their faith; however, there was nothing in HB 562 that mentioned race, religion, or creed. Nor did Leach’s proposed legislation prevent the practice of “tribunals” where religious leaders act as arbitrators in family, business or other situations whether it be Catholic Ecclesiastical Law, Jewish Halakhah Law, or Muslim Sharia Law.

“This bill does not mention, at all, Muslims, Sharia Law, Islam, even religion. It specifically talks about foreign laws not taking precedent over US laws and those of the state of Texas,” Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne stated during the council meeting.

HB 562 would only prohibit the application of any “foreign laws” should they infringe upon federal or state law. It protects the fundamental rights guaranteed by the US Constitution and Texas Constitution.

Unfortunately, that is what appeared to be the problem.

Previously, Breitbart Texas reported that an Islamic Tribunal using Sharia law was operating in Texas. One of its “judges” Dr. Taher El-badawi told Breitbart Texas that the tribunal which operates under Sharia law was a form of “non-binding dispute resolution.” There are four Islamic attorneys onsite who called themselves “judges”.

Subsequently, it turned out that the same four Dallas lawyers were not listed as members of the State Bar of Texas, which made them ineligible to practice law legally in the state, according to Breitbart Texas.

HB 562 also stirred up the progressives. During public comment, one woman resident blamed conservative media like “Breitbart and Fox News” for Islamophobia, but she did not blame radical Islam. Councilman Dennis Webb picked a fight with the Mayor.

When 25 year Irving resident Harvey Hassan, who identified himself as a Muslim, spoke, he blamed the US for Bin Laden, claimed that Hamas was created by Israel, and said that fears of Islam are unfounded. He also added that Sharia tribunal courts would save Texans tax dollars.

On the other hand, a resolution supporter asked “How can affirming our Constitution be negative? Both our Constitution and Pledge of Allegiance affirms justice for all.”

Later, Van Duyne reminded everyone that this is a country that affords everyone the right to come down to a city council meeting in a society with freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the freedom to petition the government and change laws.

Yet she has taken a beating in the local mainstream media for wanting to uphold US and Texas law. They have painted her as an Islamophobe. She pondered,“Why people think this is hatred or bigotry is beyond me. We live in the most diverse zip code in America.”

Despite HB 562 fear-mongering, the Mayor urged people to read the proposed legislation. After the vote, she spoke to Breitbart Texas. She said she was disheartened by the not-so-subtle message emanating from those against the resolution. “If you are pro-US Constitution you must be anti-Muslim? It’s shocking and not true. All of us who live in this country should embrace our constitution and our way of life.”

Van Duyne punctuated for everyone at the meeting the importance of Texas and US laws, as well as uniting behind them. She said, “respect them, obey them, embrace them.”

She also told Breitbart Texas that the reason the resolution came about was at the insistence of constituents who supported HB 562 and brought it to the attention of the Irving City Council.

In 2013, the North Dallas Gazette reported that of Irving’s 200,000 inhabitants, 30,000-40,000 of those residents were Muslim. The Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex is home to the fourth largest Muslim population in the United States, says Dallas Magazine.

Follow Merrill Hope on Twitter @OutOfTheBoxMom.

ALAC Protects Constitutional Rights Against Foreign Laws – Including Shariah

american-justice2 (1)ACT! for America:

Recently, there has been a great deal of confusion and misinformation about efforts in Oklahoma to prevent the infiltration and insinuation of Shariah law in the Sooner State.

The confusion stems from a ruling earlier this month by Federal Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange requiring the state of Oklahoma to pay the legal fees of a plaintiff who successfully sued the state over the so-called “Save Our State Amendment” from way back in 2010.

This was just the latest legal setback for that beleaguered initiative.

On 15 August 2013, the same US District Judge, Vicki Miles-LaGrange, struck down the amendment (also known as SQ755) that forbade Oklahoma’s courts from considering Islamic law (Shariah) in judicial decisions.

SQ755 had overwhelmingly passed a vote of the people in Oklahoma in November 2010.

This decision was not a surprise and echoed an earlier ruling by the Tenth US Circuit Court of Appeals also in 2010. As detailed in this article, SQ755 contained several flaws which rendered it counterproductive:

Fortunately, as ACT! For America members know, there is an effective and constitutional alternative to measures such as SQ755 and, thanks to the foresight and tenacity of State Representative Sally Kern, Oklahoma joined a host of other states last spring in passing it into law. That law is called American Laws for American Courts (ALAC).

Authored by Representative Kern, ALAC passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives 85-7 and the Oklahoma Senate 40-3. The bill was signed into law by Governor Mary Fallin on 22 April 2013.

The passage of ALAC in Oklahoma was the culmination of a 3-year effort by Representative Kern that she embarked upon when she learned that SQ755 was likely to run into trouble in the courts.

ALAC has now been passed into law in Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma and North Carolina. A version of ALAC also passed into law for specialty courts in the state of Washington. Moreover, ALAC passed the Alabama legislature overwhelmingly last year as a constitutional amendment and goes to a vote of the people on the ballot in their next statewide election in November.

ALAC remedies the flaws in Oklahoma’s SQ 755, and in many ways takes a diametrically opposite approach to SQ 755:

• ALAC is facially neutral. In an honest debate, it cannot be accused of discriminating against any religion or protected class.

• ALAC is based on a completely different legal premise from SQ 755’s. Rather than seeking a ban on foreign or international law, ALAC seeks to preserve the constitutional rights and state public policy protections of American citizens and legal residents, in cases involving foreign laws in the particular dispute being adjudicated. If a case arises in which a foreign law or foreign legal doctrine is involved in a dispute in a state court, ALAC prevents the use of that foreign law or foreign legal doctrine if any of the parties’ fundamental constitutional rights or state public policy would be violated in the process. This is very different from a blanket ban on foreign laws.

• ALAC is not vague. It provides specific guidance for judges on complex legal issues involving comity, choice of law, choice of forum, conflict of laws and forum non conveniens, protecting fundamental constitutional rights.

Because of the careful planning and thought behind ALAC’s wording, in contrast to SQ 755, from a practical standpoint, it is effective in preventing the enforcement of any foreign law – including shariah law – that would violate U.S. and state constitutional liberties or state public policy.

And the need for an effective law preserving constitutional rights against the enforcement of unconstitutional foreign law is both real and urgent: an independent study found 50 cases in 23 states where shariah law had been introduced into state court cases, including some appellate and trial court cases where the judges ruled for shariah law over U.S. law. Most victims of foreign laws in these cases had come to America for freedom and individual liberty – including American Muslims seeking to escape shariah.

It is important to point out that ALAC has been in force since 2010 and has never been challenged in court, simply because there is no basis on which to challenge a law that expressly protects constitutional rights.

Muslim Brotherhood organizations, such as the HAMAS-tied Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), have opposed ALAC, just as they opposed SQ755. This shows their true motivation; they are not interested in freedom, liberty and our constitution that guarantees them. CAIR has another, more sinister, hate-filled agenda.

Nevertheless, the states that have passed ALAC, such as Oklahoma, have moved to prevent the kind of “creeping shariah” that has occurred in Western Europe, Great Britain in particular. Despite what you might read from the so-called “mainstream” media, the threat from shariah is real and must be guarded against. It is naïve to think that “it can’t happen here.” Shariah is ALREADY here and groups like CAIR are promoting it actively.

Thanks to Representative Kern and her colleagues in the Oklahoma legislature, with the support of ACT! For America’s thousands of members in Oklahoma, we have made sure that the laws applied in Oklahoma courts will be AMERICAN laws.


download (99)

From ACT! for America:

This week, the Florida state legislature passed SB 386, a bill supported by ACT! For America that will help protect Floridians from foreign law that is inconsistent with American values, such as Islamic sharia law.

There has been a great deal of mis- and disinformation about SB 386, so we wanted to set the record straight on what the bill accomplishes.

When hopefully signed into law by Governor Scott, the bill will:

  • Help protect Florida parents who face loss of their children to a foreign custody judgment;
  • Help protect spouses who face unfair foreign judgments of divorce, spousal support, or marital property distributions;
  • Help protect parents and spouses from marital contracts (including Islamic marital contracts often named mahrs) that would force decisions regarding child custody, spousal support and marital property distributions to be decided in foreign courts or under foreign law in American courts;
  • And, help protect parents and spouses from having disputes regarding child custody, spousal support and marital property distributions from being dismissed by Florida courts in favor of being decided in foreign courts.

Although American and Florida courts have held in the past that foreign law should not be applied when the foreign law offends public policy, this concept has not previously been strengthened by statute. Further, under current Florida child custody statutes a judge can refuse to enforce a foreign custody judgment only “if the child custody law of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights.” Unfortunately, statements by the U.S. State Department suggest that “fundamental principles of human rights” should be interpreted more narrowly than how most Americans would interpret the phrase. SB 386 authorizes a Florida judge to refuse to enforce a foreign custody judgment under the much broader standard of whether the judgment offends the public policy of Florida.

Therefore, the most important effect of the change in the law in Florida would be to protect parents from losing their children to foreign custody decrees, which has happened before.

For example, a Maryland appellate court, in Hosain v. Malik, enforced a Pakistani custody order, issued under a sharia rule granting sole custody to the father when the child reaches the age of seven, handing a little girl who was being cared for by her mother over to the father.

Further, a California appellate court, in In re Marriage of Malak, enforced a Lebanese custody decree granting custody to the husband, even though the trial court had found that the wife had been denied due process in Lebanon, and the Lebanese Islamic court did not base its ruling upon the best interests of the child.

SB 386 grants Florida parents the ability to dissuade Florida courts from following such shocking rulings enforcing foreign sharia judgments, and thereby not lose their children to similar rulings.

Much has been made of the fact that the SB 386 applies to family law. From a practical standpoint, this represents no real difference when compared to American Laws for American Courts laws in other states, since 80% or more of cases in US state courts in which sharia has arisen involve family law disputes.

SB 386 is a significant step forward in protecting Florida’s court systems from the infiltration of sharia law and in protecting Florida’s citizenry from all offensive forms of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines.

ACT! for America is a 501 (c) 4 non-profit, non partisan organization that educates and empowers citizens to help play a role in enhancing our nation’s public safety. Today, ACT! has 280,000 members and 875 chapters nationwide including chapters in 11 countries around the world as far as Australia, South Africa and Israel.

Meet The Florida Citizen Lobbyists backing ALAC in the 2014 Legislative Session

By Jerry Gordon:

The Florida version of the American Law for American Courts (ALAC) is up for its fourth try in the 2014 Legislative session in Tallahassee. In contrast to prior years, there is concerted effort by bill sponsors, Sen. Alan Hayes (R- Umatilla) and Rep. Neil Combee in the House of Representatives to seek Senate and House leadership, as well as Committee commitments for passage of the bills..  There is also  new message that was conveyed to Florida legislators on both House and Senate Committees; Senate Bill 0386/House Bill 903:  “acceptance of foreign law in certain cases”.  The message is that ALAC guards against the recognition of foreign laws in Florida Courts in violation of fundamental Constitutional rights of all citizens, especially women and children.

Professor Margaret McClain at CFC 2014 Legislative Prayer Breakfast, Tallahassee

Professor Margaret McClain at CFC 2014 Legislative Prayer Breakfast, Tallahassee

That message was communicated  at the March 13th  Florida Christian Family Coalition (CFC)   Annual Legislative Prayer Breakfast by Professor Margaret McClain , a retired Arkansas State University professor, whose  daughter Heidi  was kidnapped at the age of 5 and removed to Saudi Arabia by her ex-Husband..  See our New English Review article, An American Child Kidnapped in Accordance with Shariah.  Professor McClain’s experience was also  amplified  in a recent  Iconoclast  interview  with  Yasmeen Alexandria Davis, a Florida young woman, who at  13 years of age  was  rescued from  a kidnapping by her Saudi father through the resourcefulness and persistence of her mother and grandmother,  Her Saudi father relentless keep tabs on her through a  US lawyers and an ex-FBI agent retained by him.. See   An American’s Rescue from Abduction to Saudi Arabia.    Both incidents were violations of state, federal and international conventions on parental kidnapping, but sanctioned under Sharia Islamic law.  Professor McClain and Yasmeen Alexandria Davis testified about abduction of American children to  Saudi Arabia  in a panel of such women, children, and a father at a US House 2002 Government Reform Committee chaired by former Indian Republican Rep. Dan Burton.  Professor McClain  gave proof f to the CFC lobbyists based on   her personal experience why passage of ALA in Florida  was needed to protect American women and children against alien laws that imperil their  fundamental Constitutional  and basic human rights. The CFC has made passage of ALAC a priority in the 2014 legislature.

Sen. Alan Hays, Sponsor of Florida ALAC, SB 0386 at CFC Legislative Prayer Breakfast, 2014

Sen. Alan Hays, Sponsor of Florida ALAC, SB 0386 at CFC Legislative Prayer Breakfast, 2014

The 75  trained men and women, members of the CFC who heard Professor McClain and ALAC Senate Bill sponsor, Sen. Alan Hays,  Rep. Larry Ahern, sponsor of  a bill, Offenses against the Unborn Children (OAUC), fanned out to meet legislators. They  were  equipped with FAQs sheet on why ALAC  is needed and a  list of nearly  two dozen Florida lower court and appellate cases in which foreign laws were recognized .  How effective were they?   According to a report by the CFC:

They met with a total of thirty-nine (39) lawmakers and secured thirty-two (32) co-sponsors/supporters on our legislative priorities. Nineteen (19) co-sponsors and supporters on American Laws for American Courts and thirteen (13) co-sponsors and supporters on the Offenses Against the Unborn Bill.

Neither they nor CFC’s executive director, Anthony Vertigo is resting on their laurels.  They are planning another Legislative Prayer Breakfast and Citizen Lobby Day in Tallahassee the week prior to the close of the Florida legislative session on May 2nd, to assure that those ALAC commitments and others are honored.

Read more at New English Review


Florida Family Association:

Florida Senate Judiciary Committee to consider America Laws for American Courts bill which would prohibit Sharia and other foreign laws. 

Please click here to send your email to the committee members.

The Florida Senate Judiciary Committee will consider SB 386 titled Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases on Tuesday, March 25, 2014 between 9:00 and 11:00 am. 

This legislation, commonly known as “American Laws for American Courts”, would prohibit Florida courts from considering certain provisions of foreign laws, including Islamic Sharia law, if such provisions are inconsistent with the Florida and United States of America Constitutions.

If Florida courts accept provisions of Islamic Sharia law or other foreign laws or legal codes which are inconsistent with American laws it will undermine public policies enacted by our representative form of government and change our value system.

Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases: Defines “foreign law, legal code, or system”; specifies public policy on application of foreign law, legal code, or system in proceedings relating to dissolution of marriage, support, time-sharing, UCCJEA, & UIFSA; provides that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void; provides that certain contracts & contract provisions are void; provides for construction of waiver by natural person of person’s fundamental liberties, rights, & privileges guaranteed by state or federal constitutions; provides that claims of forum non conveniens or related claims must be denied; provides that act doesn’t require or authorize court to adjudicate, or prohibit any religious organization from adjudicating, ecclesiastical matters in violation of specified constitutional provisions or to conflict with any federal treaty or other international agreement to which U.S. is party to specified extent.  Full text of SB 386

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send urging the members of the Florida Senate Judiciary Committee to vote for SB 386 – Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases. 

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish. 

Please click here to send your email to the members of the Florida Judiciary committee. 

Florida Senate Judiciary Committee contact information.

Islamist-Interfaith Alliance Battles Foreign Law Bans

IslamWillDominateWhiteHouseBy Ryan Mauro:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more at Front Page

CAIR-FAIL: Analysis of CAIR’s 2013 Report on Islamophobia in the U.S.

download (43)By Louis Palme:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has released its 2013 report on Islamophobia, titled “Legislating Fear”. The report constitutes one big pity party over the abject failure of CAIR (and other Islamist organizations) to convince Americans that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. Although the report is 162 pages long, much of it was cut and pasted from their previous 2009-2010 report.

CAIR receives most of its funds from overseas, so they are somewhat accountable for how effectively that money is being spent. Since the Islamists are losing ground in terms of anti-Sharia legislation and school textbook dawah, they must blame someone (actually, lots of people and organizations) for their failures. They have identified 69 different organizations “whose primary purpose is to promote prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims”, either directly or by regular support. It is a matter of concern, however, that the long litany of grievances, offending individuals and “anti-Muslim” organizations could provide ample impetus for fanatical Muslims to carry out bloody “Islamic justice.”

Nowhere in this document, however, is there any acknowledgement that the Islamists have been making demands and insisting on prerogatives that run counter to the U.S. Constitution, state laws, and basic human rights. Also, nowhere is there any suggestion that perhaps the Islamists need to modify their Islamic ideology to make it more compatible with Western civilization in the 21Century.

CAIR wants the word “Islamist” dropped from the American lexicon. They argue that those who use it are “making a political and religious value judgment each time it is used”. Unfortunately, Islam is at best 14 percent religion (Quran) and 86 percent political (Muhammad) based on Bill Warner’s analysis. What are most offensive to non-Muslims are the political activities of Muslims exercised under the cover of religion. Until CAIR can suggest a word that covers Islam’s unprecedented obsession with society outside the mosque (including the despised kufrs), the word Islamist must apply.

CAIR goes to great lengths throughout the report to conflate criticism of the ideology of Islam with anti-Muslim bias. They define an Islamophobe as “an individual who holds a closed-minded view of Islam and promotes prejudice against or hatred of Muslims.” In consistently linking Islamic ideology with Muslim people, the report sees pervasive bigotry where the actual situation is just the condemnation of Islamic doctrines that fly in the face of civil rights and community harmony.

Money, money, money: Right from the opening page of the report, CAIR is asking for money, both from Muslim-Americans and from overseas supporters. They have tallied up the money spent by the opposition right down to the dollar! $119,662,719, to be exact. Why not just say $120 million? They are also quite jealous over the salaries made by the opposition. Not only does the CAIR report quote the exact salaries of David Horowitz, Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel and others, but a table on page 14 calculates an average salary increase of 12% for the parties listed. It looks as though CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad is bucking for a raise.

Financial Disclosure Hypocrisy — CAIR gleaned most of its information about the anti-Islamist organizations by reading the IRS Form 990’s required by non-profit organizations. This is both ironic and hypocritical, since CAIR lost its non-profit status in 2011 because it has failed to file those forms disclosing its own membership and sources of funds since 2006. It was only due to the Tea Party tax exemption brouhaha that their tax exempt status was reinstated earlier this year.

Friends and Enemies Lists – Given the number of brutal assassinations by Muslims of non-Muslims (often with no justification), CAIR’s lengthy lists of friends and enemies with pictures is troubling. Those assassinations include Daniel Pearl (2002), Theo Van Gogh (2004), Salmaan Taseer (2011), Lee Rigby (2013), and Dominic Parker (2013). The “Best List” contains only four individuals – Rais Buhuiyan, Chris Christie, Dick Durban, and Anderson Cooper (who would be arrested and hanged if he ever set foot inside Saudi Arabia or Iran). The “Worst List” includes David Caton, Jerry Boykin, Muslim Zuhdi Jasser, Herman Cain, Peter King, David Yerushalmi, Allen West, and Walid Shoebat. Also mentioned are the state legislators who sponsored “anti-Islam” legislation (better known as American Laws for American Courts).

So-called Anti-Islam Legislation – The title of CAIR’s report and longest chapter in the report deal with the advance of the American Laws for American Courts legislation.  According to the report, there have been 78 ALAC bills introduced in 29 states. Six states (Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Tennessee) have successfully passed such legislation. These laws essentially confirm that the state and federal laws take precedent over foreign laws. From CAIR’s point of view these laws “have at their heart the goal of subjecting Islam to government-sanctioned censure.” Naturally, Muslims who emigrated from countries where Islam was the national religion might see these laws as “censure”, but the fundamental problem ignored in CAIR’s report is that Sharia Law contradicts the U.S. constitution and many state laws with regard to cruel and unusual punishments, mandated eye-for-an-eye revenge, women’s rights, freedom of worship, inheritance, and equality before the law, just to name a few. CAIR cannot even honestly describe Sharia Law: “It is a set of interpretations [not laws which exact physical and corporal punishments, mind you] of the Quran and other Islamic sources [Only a small fraction of Sharia can be traced to the Quran; the rest is man-made, as is evidenced by the development of five schools of Islamic jurisprudence several centuries after the Quran was “handed down.”]; it is dynamic and intended to accommodate the time, place and laws – in America that means the U.S. Constitution – of the particular community [not to mention that the most recent codification approved by the U.S. based International Institute of Islamic Thought – Reliance of the Traveler – was written around 1360]. . . . Sharia mandates Muslims to respect the law of the land in which they live [except that R of T states in paragraph w43.5(c), “it is clear that there is virtually no country on the face of the earth where a Muslim has an excuse to behave differently than he would in an Islamic country, whether in his commercial or other dealings.”]

CAIR goes on to argue that Sharia Law in America is a “non-existent problem.” Human rights advocates have identified fifty cases in twenty-three states where Sharia Law was applied in contradiction to State and Federal laws. These cases were discovered only because they were reversed on appeal – a process that few victims of Sharia Law have the knowledge or resources to undertake (See, Don’t tell 17-year-old New Jersey bride, “S.D.”, that Sharia Law is a non-existent problem:  She was repeatedly raped and beaten by her new husband who successfully argued in court that it was his right as a Muslim to treat his wife that way (See, New Jersey Judge Rules Muslim Man’s Right to Rape is Religious Freedom). Fortunately, the case was overturned on appeal.

Read more at Islam Watch