Justice Department Forces Christian Pastor to Testify on Islam Views

UPDATE: Federal Court Dismisses Entire Justice Department Mosque Case

PJ Media, by J. Christian Adams, Aug. 31, 2017:

The United State Department of Justice has issued subpoenas to force a Christian pastor in Virginia to disclose under oath his views on Islam.

Pastor Steve Harrelson of the Mt. Lebanon Baptist Church in Boston, Virginia, has been served with a wide-ranging subpoena by lawyers for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. The subpoena demands his presence to testify under oath in response to questions from Justice Department lawyers about his views on Islam as well as several other issues:

DOJ Subpoena listing documents targets must provide to the government

Harrelson is not a party to any lawsuit or other action brought by the Justice Department. He is a private citizen. The Justice Department subpoena also demands that the pastor bring any papers or documents that he has to his deposition with government lawyers that relate to or mention Islam and turn them over to the government.

Pastor Steven Harrelson

In addition to Harrelson, other Christian third-party private citizens have also been subpoenaed to reveal under oath their views on Islam and to deliver any documents they possess related to Islam to federal attorneys.

The Justice Department case alleges that Culpeper County refused to grant a permit to allow the Islamic Center of Culpeper to pump and haul away sewage. The case was brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The mosque purchased land that was unsuitable for a septic system at the time of purchase.

The United States Department of Justice is pursuing the case against Culpeper County and forcing a Christian pastor and other Christians to testify under oath about their views on Islam even though the mosque itself has already settled all claims with the county. (Full settlement here).

The fact that the mosque settled with the county led one federal judge to call into question the Justice Department’s zeal to continue to pursue the case even though the purported victim is satisfied and will be building a mosque:

At a federal court hearing Friday at which the county argued to dismiss the suit for a second time, Judge Moon sided with Culpeper in providing his take on the sustained complaint, saying the continued litigation still puts the Islamic Center at odds with the county.

“It’s an artificial division of a settlement agreement. They tried to come together, said they would try to live together peaceably, now it seems you are putting a wedge between the county and the Islamic Center of Culpeper,” he told the federal attorney arguing against dismissing the case. The Justice Dept.’s continued pursuit of the lawsuit does not help the Islamic Center, Moon added.

The underlying action is a controversial civil court case alleging that Culpeper County discriminated in zoning decisions regarding an application to build a mosque.  The case was filed a month after President Trump was elected but before the inauguration by Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta. It has continued with unbroken zeal.

Federal law prohibits discrimination in zoning practices against religions. During the Obama administration, a radical new argument was pressed by DOJ lawyers: that zoning boards can be saddled with any “naked animus or resistance from the community.” In other words, if some people don’t want a mosque in the community, then any zoning decision against the mosque must be because of citizen opposition. It’s the everyone-is-racist if anyone-is-racist theory advanced by academia and others.

The lawyers on the subpoena documents are listed as Onjil McEachin and Sameena Shina Majeed.

Onjil McEachin came to the Justice Department in the last couple of years from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, where McEachin’s office was deeply involved in advancing disparate impact legal theories to prove racial discrimination.

Sameena Majeed was formerly a lawyer with the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia and won the Steere Prize in Women’s Studies at Yale for her work entitled “Feminist Voices: An Ethnographic Examination of Feminist Consciousness in Urban Pakistani Women.”

The case was brought by the Civil Rights Division’s Housing and Civil Enforcement Section. The hiring practices of the Civil Rights Division under President Obama has been the feature of PJ Media’s Every Single One series and an inspector general Report of the Department of Justice. (The lawyers featured in the Every Single One Series from that section can be viewed here.) After obtaining resumes of lawyer hires after PJ Media was forced to file a lawsuit against the DOJ, the series revealed that under President Obama, every single one of the lawyers hired was a partisan or ideological leftist. This led the inspector general to recommend that the department end certain hiring criteria that have led to the perception that only lawyers of a certain leftist ideological perspective are hired.

Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez refused to implement the recommendations of the inspector general.

The Washington Post obtained and reported information in a story about the controversial case that the Culpeper sheriff had conducted seminars on jihadi networks in the United States — a fact the Washington Post found to be relevant to the zoning dispute.

The county sheriff has previously come under fire for hosting a seminar on “Jihadi Networks in America” led by a former FBI agent who claims terrorists control most leading American Muslim groups.

Since President Trump’s inauguration, the notorious Civil Rights Division has been run by caretakers without a Senate-confirmed political appointee head. President Trump has appointed Eric Dreiband to head the Civil Rights Division.

Next week, senators have a chance to ask about whether it is a good use of resources to subpoena Christian pastors to ask them about their views on Islam when in a case where the primary parties have already settled.

The Ninth Circuit’s stolen sovereignty should serve as final wakeup call

Africa Studio | Shutterstock

Africa Studio | Shutterstock

“What it evidences is the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation” ~ Justice Samuel Alito, (Obergefell v. Hodges, dissenting)

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, February 10, 2017:

Last night, we saw the logical outcome of over a half century of political agreement on the Right and Left that the opinions of the courts are the sole and final arbiter of every public policy issue, no matter how divorced from the Constitution and inimical to national interests those decisions may be.

The Ninth Circuit, although not “officially” deciding the merits of the immigration case, indicated that there is a constitutional right for anyone to immigrate, even during a time of war, even from countries we were so careful never to take immigrants from until recently. It concluded the president must show the courts sufficient evidence that each person will be a terrorist and anything short of that creates a due process right to be here.

It’s very important to remember that this is not about the executive action. President Trump’s executive order is following a statute, really a series of statutes, which grant any president ABSOLLUTE at-will power to shut off all or any immigration. According to the perverted rationale of the courts, even Congress couldn’t cut off immigration, even from part of the Middle East because it poses issues to the Left’s social justice agenda, which has been retroactively enshrined into the Constitution.

The outcome of this case is that even if Congress was to merely bar visas from countries that support terror (which is current law for state-sponsors of terror), that law would be open to lawsuits and would be enjoined nationwide by one district within one liberal circuit — and there’s not a darn thing we can do about it. It means any Islamic supremacist sitting in a shack in Somalia has due process rights to immigrate here and liberal states can sue on his behalf.  It means any Muslim in Syria can sue us if they believe a Christian was admitted as a refugee in front of them. After all, we already know that four of the justices on the Supreme Court will never defy any political agenda of the Left, and that Anthony Kennedy is terrible on immigration.

Those radicals breaking windows and beating people up in the streets? Those views are not only represented in Congress but are now codified into law and the Constitution by the misconceived supremacy of the judicial branch of government. As I predicted in my book, within a few years (perhaps less), there will be wholesale judicial amnesty for all of the illegal immigrants in this country under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It’s already happening in the lower courts. Last night, it was codified into law by the Ninth Circuit when it said illegals have due process rights (to remain in the country).

So where does it say in the Constitution that there is a right for foreign nationals to immigrate, especially when courts have said the opposite for 200 years? It’s in the same clause as “separation of church and state,” gay marriage, sex change operations, and the right to 30 days of early voting.

It’s not worth re-litigating what is so obvious to a sane person and frankly what is obvious to these judges themselves. We’ve covered every aspect of this case in the following articles:

What I would like to focus on is the solution. In the coming days I plan to focus on the strategy of wholesale judicial reform as well as the need to continue the push for an Article V Convention of the States. But the first step is understanding the severity of the problem and to stop legitimizing the false premise that courts have the final say on political questions.  Let’s say this together: The federal judiciary is IRREMEDIABLY broken, and as witnessed by these cases, half the GOP judges are just as bad.

We must also stop legitimizing the notion that Congress doesn’t have full authority over the jurisdiction and structure of the courts.

Let me leave you with the following twisted irony.

Samuel Chase was one of first Supreme Court justices and one of the earliest supporters of judicial review (which is not synonymous with judicial exclusivity/supremacy). Chase was impeached, at the behest of President Jefferson, for using the court to advance his political agenda. Yet, even this judicial strongman of his day, when defending the original rationale for the power of judicial review against laws passed by legislatures, declared, “an act of the Legislature contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority.” Chase believed the Court could strike down laws passed by Congress that violated the essence of the social compact and fundamental natural rights.

Fast-forward two centuries and we have unelected judges, not the legislature, violating the essence of the social compact by redefining marriage and gender itself (the ultimate natural law). Courts have violated the popular and jurisdictional sovereignty of our states and federal union in hamstringing the elected representatives from protecting us against those who come here without our consent and harm our society. The fact that any liberal state official can sue to bring in people who don’t share our values and might do us harm violates the very essence of the consent-based national sovereignty at the core of the social compact and at the foundation of why the Constitution gave national sovereignty questions to the national government. As Justice Scalia warned, we are suffering from social transformation without representation.

Until and unless we reclaim our sovereignty from the courts, we are no longer a sovereign nation.

Inside the radical Islamic law firm representing the Orlando terrorist’s widow

pulse-night-club-orlando-memorialConservative Review, by Jordan Schachtel, January 21, 2017:

Noor Salman will utilize a fringe Islamic law firm in her attempt to prove innocence against charges she assisted her deceased husband, Omar Mateen, in conducting the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.

In June, Mateen — who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State terror group — killed 49 innocents at the Pulse nightclub, wounding an additional 53.

Salman faces charges of aiding and abetting and providing material support to ISIS. She has also been accused of obstructing the investigation and deliberately misleading local and federal law enforcement officials. She claims to be innocent of any wrongdoing, but there is a stack of evidence showing Salman was fully aware of her husband’s plans and radicalization.

She will be represented by the Texas-based Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America, which is part of the Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA).

The MLFA has been involved in several high-profile Islamic terror cases. They represented clients in the Holy Land Foundation Trial, which was the largest terror-financing trial in U.S. history. Five officers of the Holy Land Foundation were charged with providing material support to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.

MLFA has also represented Sami Al-Arian, a fundraiser for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror group, who was deported to Turkey in 2015.

In 2003, the legal fund held a fundraiser for five brothers accused of setting up a financial front for Hamas.

Along with their controversial work defending terrorists, the MLFA board of directors is stacked with individuals who are closely connected with the international Muslim Brotherhood.

One board member, Mouffa Nahhas, is the past president of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) — Dallas Fort-Worth chapter. CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial. The FBI has showcased in federal court how CAIR was created to support Hamas.

Another board member, Hatem Bazian, is a lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley, and the president of American Muslims for Palestine. Bazian has called for an intifada (armed Islamic uprising) in America. He also co-founded the Students for Justice in Palestine, an anti-Israel hate group that has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Prosecutors insist Noor Salman was intimately involved in the planning stages of her husband’s jihadi massacre. Her counsel claims Salman was actually a victim in the entire situation, suffering abuse at the hands of Mateen. Nonetheless, her reported choice of the MLFA-affiliated Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America as her counsel is sure to raise some eyebrows

Emerson on Fox News America’s Newsroom – Open Societies and Stopping Terrorism


Bill Hemmer: Police in Canada now say the gunman in the attack acted alone. Serious questions that remain about whether or not this was yet another instance of a so-called lone wolf attack. Steve Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, with me now. Steve, how are you? And good morning to you. You have some sources up on Ottawa. What are you picking up now that we have not yet learned?

Steve Emerson: Canada is no different than the United States. For the last few years, last decade or so, they have experienced at least a dozen major aborted plots to attack major targets [in Canada] including government facilities as well as [other] facilities in [Canada and] the United States. All of them have been stopped with the assistance of either Canadian intelligence or US intelligence. The sound bite you played by Walid Phares was right on, was spot on. The issue is if the government can get inside our minds then they could stop acts of terrorism. But the issue is the point of activization. You can be radical but not cross the line; you are believing in a radical theology. Once you cross that line into carrying out a criminal predicate, then it’s illegal, then the government has the right to stop you. So taking away your passport isn’t going to stop you from carrying out an act of violence.

Hemmer: Yeah you’re precisely right about that. Just so our viewers know, this man’s passport was confiscated. So too are the passports of 90 other suspected Islamic radicals that the Canadians are watching right now. You mentioned Walid Phares. To our viewers who did not hear that, here’s what he said on the record last night.

Clip of Walid Phares: The pool of individuals who are like Rouleau and Bibeau, both in the United States and in Canada, is pretty big. How are we going to be able to determine which one is going to act is the real problem of counterintelligence services.

Hemmer: How we are able to determine which one will act is the real problem of counterintelligence. How do you address that Steve?

Emerson: That is the quintessential problem because when the government becomes too intrusive, when it starts listening to conversations, taking down your phone numbers, looking at the books that you read at the library, the public gets outraged, that’s invading your privacy. Yet those are all indicators, potential indicators of whether you are potentially going to carry out an act of terrorism or whether you’re interested in carrying out an act of terrorism. And yet the problem is that if you are not interested and yet the government does intrude on your privacy, everyone yells, well this is an invasion of your civil liberties. In a free society there’s always going to be this tension here. After 9/11 there was no controversy at all about passing the Patriot Act. I think it passed 99-1. Today if you had a vote in the Congress about the Patriot Act, I’m not so sure it would pass. Maybe it would pass today, but maybe it wouldn’t have passed last week.

Hemmer: It just has a way of rubbing off and the intensity we give the topic rubs off after time. We were speaking last hour with a great guest who was telling us that you need to raise the terror alert just to make sure the thing still work. They did this in Canada, I don’t know if that is something you would support here. Is that even necessary in our country?

Emerson: Well you remember we went through the color alerts. The issue of the alerts is a psychological thing; the purpose is to raise the public awareness. But the reality is, Bill, that the public awareness is raised really only through one thing – through fear. And that fear is engendered ironically through the success of attacks like the ones that were carried out in Canada over the last three days. When the FBI is successful in stopping attacks, the public doesn’t realize the magnitude of damage and death that could occur. So they’re almost victims of their own success. That’s the real irony in stopping attacks.

Hemmer: Steve, it is good to get your analysis here. Thanks for coming back with us today. Steve Emerson out of Washington, DC.


See videos with transcripts of all of Steve Emerson’s appearances here.

Petition – 2012 Brussels Declaration


To Preserve Free Speech, Civil Liberties, Human Rights and Democracy, against all efforts to injure and usurp those universal principles, we call upon leaders in all nations to support this 2012 Brussels Declaration to Safeguard Individual Liberties and Human Rights:

Reasserting that Human rights and liberties are universal, individual, equal, inalienable, and self-evident irrespective of philosophical, cultural or religious considerations, as a matter of long-held principle;

Considering that any honest defender of Democracy has the right and the duty to uphold and defend free speech, civil liberties and human rights;

Affirming the irrefutable fact that sharia law as articulated and applied is incompatible with and destructive to free speech, civil liberties and human rights and as such is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy (as stated in the 13 Feb 2003 judgment of the ECHR);

Acknowledging that the declaration known as “Cairo Declaration of Human Right in Islam” also commonly referred to as the “Cairo Declaration” curtails all human rights under sharia law and sharia normative behaviour restrictions (CDHRI Articles 22, 23, 24)on the pretense that  “All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah”(CDHRI Article 1);

Observing that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), being the creator of Cairo Declaration and its current main proponent has, by its  continuous and single-minded activity, proven to be the principal international politico-religious organization working to restrict free speech, civil liberties and human rights and to enforce sharia  in the world;

Asserting that any official endorsement or promotion of the Cairo Declaration or any cooperation with OIC that leads, by the test of consequences, to more enforcement of sharia anywhere in the world identifies its perpetrator as an active opponent of Democracy, freedom of speech, civil liberties and human rights;

Noting that such an identification renders illegitimate  any attempt by the perpetrator to discuss or negotiate matters involving freedom of speech, civil liberties and human rights in any local, national or international forums;

The signatories solemnly require of their governments and civil society:

1)      To commence a process, to be known as the Brussels Process, to implement the content of this declaration through education and policy initiatives at all levels of government and sectors of civil society, in order to safeguard the future liberties and rights of our nations and our children, so that all members of the human family may prosper as free individuals.

2)      To decline any invitation to participate in any local, national or international forum to discuss civil liberties, free speech or human rights, if the organizers – individual persons or organizations – are known proponents of the Cairo Declaration or societal sharia enforcement unless the negotiated or discussed topic  is a transition of their codification and implementation of human rights to the UNDHR definitions and away from the Cairo Declaration definitions.

3)      To protest against any kind of participation in a local, national or international meeting dedicated to civil liberties, free speech or human rights’ discussions or negotiations by any known proponents of the Cairo Declaration or societal sharia enforcements, unless they are only attending in an observational capacity or negotiating their entry in the Brussels Process.

4)      To initiate a thorough inquiry before any bilateral or multilateral cooperation about civil liberties, free speech or human rights related matters, in order to clearly identify any participants who are proponents for the Cairo Declaration or sharia law, or who have cooperated or collaborated with the OIC or its associated organizations.

5)      To reject and forbid any public funding for promotion of the Cairo Declaration or of any sharia societal implementation and enforcement, because such promotions are a direct attack against our most fundamental democratic principles and human rights.

6)      To stop any cooperation with all known proponents of the Cairo Declaration at a national or international level, when that cooperation has as its aim or result, a restriction of civil liberties, free speech or human rights in a democratic country, until those proponents repudiate the Cairo Declaration.

7)      To extend cooperation and support in all forums to former proponents of the Cairo Declaration who repudiate the suppression by the OIC and sharia law of civil liberties, free speech and human rights, and who assert that human rights and liberties are universal, individual, equal, inalienable, and self-evident irrespective of philosophical, cultural or religious considerations.

8)      To engage with civil society and official organizations that work to safeguard  individual liberties from suppression by shariah law, especially those located in nations that are signatories of the Cairo Declaration or members of the OIC, to encourage dialogue, education and understanding on individual liberties and human rights, as these terms have been historically understood before the Cairo Declaration.

Brussels Process Launched By The International Civil Liberties Alliance On 9 July 2012

ICLA press release:

9 July 2012, Brussels Belgium:   On 9 July, the International Civil Liberties Alliance presented an International Human Rights and Freedom of Speech Conference in the European Parliament in Brussels.  Over 100 people from numerous, countries, cultures, and backgrounds took part in this milestone event at which Lars Hedegaard of the Danish Free Press Society received the “Defender of Freedom” award.

The conference was organised in response to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)’s Istanbul Process, which seeks to institute a global blasphemy law that would ban freedom of expression under sharia doctrine worldwide. Many governments are actively aiding the Istanbul Process, rather than opposing it as they should to preserve the liberties of their citizens.  The European Union’s offer to host the next meeting of the OIC’s Istanbul Process shows that organization’s willingness to impose severe restrictions on traditional rights and freedoms of citizens within the European Union.   The principal purpose of the International Human Rights and Freedom of Speech Conference was to encourage an open and fact-based public debate on these issues, and to provide policy guidance for political leaders, especially those who themselves are raising the alarm over the OIC’s totalitarian sharia doctrines against free expression, civil liberties, women’s rights, homosexual rights and religious freedom.

The highlight of the conference was the formal presentation of the Defender of Freedom Award by Canadian author Mark Steyn  to Lars Hedegaard, founder of the Danish Free Press Society (Trykkefrihedsselskabet) and the International Free Press Society.

The principal outcome of ICLA’s 9 July Conference in the European Parliament was the “Brussels Declaration to Safeguard Individual Liberties and Human Rights.”  That Declaration describes and launches a systematic ‘Brussels Process,’ designed to stimulate public debate on the conflict between sharia and liberty; to provide a counterweight to the efforts of the OIC to impose blasphemy laws in Europe and other countries; to re-establish standards of good governance and reasonable foreign relations based on the UN Declaration of Human Rights and national constitutions; and to reject the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam as a basis for any discussions on human rights and civil liberties. Working Groups for the Brussels Process were organized to develop legislative initiatives and briefings for policymakers and the media, in order to work to implement the Brussels Process as a moderate and prudent approach to protect free expression and human rights.  The Brussels Declaration was developed with ongoing consultation with legislators in several countries.

The Conference was attended by participants from eighteen countries including Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, UK, and the USA.

The International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA) is a human rights organisation dedicated, in the spirit of classical liberalism, to protecting democracy, freedom and individual liberties from religious and political doctrines that oppose those rights and liberties.   ICLA does so through its voluntary members’ work to endorse, coordinate and promote educational and advocacy campaigns, legislative initiatives and changes in  policies of governments and civil society.

More information can be found at: http://www.libertiesalliance.org/brusselsconference/

Have You Ever Been Inside a CAIR Civil Liberties Lecture?


At 8:40 PM Saturday night June 9, 2012, the Council on American Islamic  Relations Tampa Director Hassan Shibly, Esq., presented a “Know Your Rights  Civil Liberties Conference” at the Masjid Al-Bir in Kissimmee,  FL.

The Masjid Al-Bir is a two year old pale green 15,000 square foot Mosque  facility located in a remote rural part of Kissimmee, FL off Old Tampa  Highway.  As we approached the entrance of the Mosque, the women were  instructed to enter through the women-only entrance leading them into a small  area enclosed by a 6 foot solid white vinyl outdoor fence one could not see in  or out of.  We did not see or hear from the women until we met again in the  poorly lit outside parking lot after the event was over.  CAIR and the  Masjid Al-Bir had no sensitivity towards the non-Muslim women who were not  allowed out of the enclosure even after the Maghreb (evening) prayers were  concluded.

Upon entering the Mosque, my video camera and press credentials were clearly  visible when Jamal Hassouneh, Masjid Al-Bir Board Member, approached me  and  said he will need to speak with the speaker (Hassan Shibly) to see if  video would be allowed.  A few minutes later Mr. Hassouneh returned and  said,

“You can stay but no cameras, no recording…because this is basically for  the community and that is our policy…you are welcome to listen, there is  nothing secret about it but we will not allow cameras or recording.”

It is unusual for a publicly advertised community event to be so secretive,  but that is Mr. Shibly’s prerogative and we graciously complied.  Mr.  Shibly described his lecture as a “community event” and a “community empowerment  session” in his opening remarks, and that couldn’t have been further from the  truth.

Community Event means Muslim Community Only

Mr. Hassouneh had used the words “community event” several times so it caught  my attention, and only later we would learn that the “community” meant the Muslim community as a separate group within the larger Central  Florida community.

In an email exchange with this reporter, Mr. Shibly articulates the  separatist nature of what was mischaracterized as a Civil Liberties Conference  when he wrote,

“Anyway this was not a meeting for the public, it was an education seminar  for the Muslim community conducted in a Muslim place of worship. It was  advertised only to the Muslim community one of two ways. 1. Fliers were put in  the Mosque so the attendees of the Mosque to could attend. 2. An email was sent  via constant contact ONLY to the email list of Muslims in Florida. The general  mailing list, or the mailing list of media, was NOT included. I think you found  out about it because you or someone you know has signed up on our Muslim  community email list. Otherwise you would not have even received notice of the  event. Anyway that was fine with us. But again this was not a public forum or  event, it was a private event for the Muslim community on private property.”

Mr. Shibly, nowhere on your flyer does it say “Muslims Only”.  Then  again you couldn’t really say publicly your civil liberties lectures  discriminate against all non-Muslims, could you?

The United West demands that Hassan Shibly attend a personal  sensitivity training class to help him understand how his intolerant rhetoric  violates the civil rights of all those who do not follow Islamic doctrine and  theology.  It is the height of insensitivity to say on behalf of CAIR Tampa  that your Civil Liberties event was for the Muslim Community only and out of the  goodness of your heart you allowed us non-Muslim dhimmis to attend.

Mr. Shibly’s lecture next went into the disclaimers when he said, “no  recording of this session is allowed whether it’s audio, visual, or otherwise  and the reason for that is very simple.  Anyone that is recording will be  trespassing on the property illegally and we will pursue that.”

Free Speech Is What I Tell You It Is

Immediately one of the Mosque members got concerned and asked if he could  take notes.  Mr. Shibly said,

“Notes for personal purposes exclusively are allowed, other than that they  are not allowed.  So for personal education purposes, so you  understand.  Anyone writing for the purposes of defaming the Muslim  community or writing about the Muslim community or like, that would be  considered trespassing, thank you.”

Mr. Shibly, your proclamation that a person cannot defame or write  unflatteringly about the Muslim Community is patently offensive to America’s  right to freedom of speech, especially at a self-described “civil liberties  conference.”    Mr. Shibly is trying to limit this reporter’s 1st  Amendment right to comment on anything that may be “defaming” the Muslim  community.  That is not only absurd, it could not be under any  circumstances a “trespass” under applicable statutes and case law, see  Winselmann v. Reynolds.  There is additional case law backing up this  reporter’s claim however, this article’s purpose is not to go into the weeds on  legal theory but to show one or two examples exposing where Mr. Shibly’s threats  and legal knowledge are intended as nothing more than adult bullying  tactics.

The Legal Showdown

Simply put, Hassan Shibly, Esq., cannot dictate and purposefully try to  intimidate how this reporter or anyone else writes or speaks about what was  observed at the Masjid Al-Bir CAIR Civil Liberties Conference.  According  to Fl. Statute 934.02(2), Stvenson v. State, any criminal of civil “trespass”  claims would be frivolous.

Mr. Shibly is an American civil rights lawyer using our laws as a billy club  to deny this reporter his first amendment rights.  It may not seem like  much on the surface but Mr. Shibly’s quote from above, “… Anyone writing for  the purposes of defaming the Muslim community or writing about the Muslim  community or like, that would be considered trespassing, thank you” follows one  of the most important tenets of Shariah-compliant Political Islam, but it  certainly does not follow American law.

Mr. Shibly is right that defaming the followers of Islam, Islam as a  political ideology, or the Muslim community (ummah) is a punishable offense  called blasphemy.  When one defames the Muslim community they are  committing blasphemy against Allah and his messenger and it is considered a  heinous act to the followers of Islamic political doctrine and theology.

Abu Hanifa and Muhammad explain Free Speech, Shariah Style

One of the most renowned and eminent scholars of Islam Imam Abu Hanifa  said,

“Muslim speaking against the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah  be upon him) should be executed and if it is a non-Muslim who doesn’t have a  contract he should also be executed.”

To fully understand the importance of defaming the “Muslim community” to a  follower of Islam one must go back to the life of Muhammad for proper  guidance.

“From “The Life of Muhammadsource  document.

“The poets of old Arabia  were equivalent to our TV presenters. They tended to make fun of Muhammad  and his claims of prophethood. Muhammad was determined to  eliminate this mockery.

Muhammad was sorely tried  by several poets. One was Asma bint Marwan. When her latest verses were recited  to the Prophet, he cried  out, “Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan?” Umayr ibn  Ali, a clansman of hers volunteered. That night she was sleeping, her youngest  child still at her breast, when her clansman thrust his sword  through her. On that day new converts were won as they could see the power of Islam.”

A month later an almost identical situation occurred. This time it was the  poet Abu Afak, reputedly over a hundred years old, who raised the  Prophet‘s ire. Muhammad  exclaimed: “Who will avenge me on this scoundrel?” and Salim ibn Umayr was the  helper of God.”

The Muslim Community and Law Enforcement

Mr. Shibly said,

“17 out of 20 of the alleged terrorist plots that involved Muslims in the  U.S. was actually setup by FBI Agents. What they do is find some idiot,  misguided, often mentally retarded, or troubled individual and they provoke  him…brainwash him  Until he agrees to do something haram, illegal,  immoral, and disgusting.  When he agrees to do that (terrorist attack) and  he doesn’t have the means, so they (FBI) give him the means. And when he accepts  the means they arrest him.”

Shibly just told the 40+ Muslims in attendance that the FBI entraps 85% of  the Muslims arrested on terrorism charges.  These types of claims against  the FBI, spoken by a Muslim civil rights lawyer, Imam, and CAIR Director, builds  distrust between the Muslim community and all levels of law enforcement.   Mr. Shibly also conveyed THAT the FBI preys on the Muslims who are idiots,  retarded, and misguided.  Mr. Shibly’s message can be interpreted by some,  that if you talk with law enforcement you are a retarded idiot.

Shibly is cleverly hitting on Islamic cultural hot button  triggers.  Middle Eastern men are very proud and if you imply they are  anything other than strong intelligent men – it is a severe cultural slap in the  face, especially by someone who is in a position of authority.  The next  hot button issue for Muslim men is the topic of women.

The Muslim community and women

Shibly says,

“We have discovered there are over 15,000 paid informants for the FBI, we are  not worried about informants…the problem is often they are going beyond the  step of being informants to being provocateurs and that is what we are worried  about.”

Shibly told the story of how one Muslim provocateur was told by his FBI  handlers that it was ok to engage in fornication, zina, and adultery with Muslim  sisters, and when one does, they will use that against them (the Muslim  sisters).  “So they (the FBI) are using our own sins as a community against  us”, Mr. Shibly said.

Mr. Shibly now planted the seed the FBI is instructing Muslim men that it is  ok to defile their women and then blackmail the women after they have been  defiled.   If there were anyone in that “Civil Liberties” lecture who  did not hate the FBI before, they do now.  At this point the only thing the  FBI could do worse is entrap an Imam in a trumped up prostitution scandal.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Family Security  Matters Contributing Editor Alan Kornman is the regional  coordinator of The United  West-Uniting Western Civilization for Freedom and Liberty. His  email is: alan@theunitedwest.org