Taxi driver Mohamed Salim says he was attacked by a passenger who called him a terrorist. A recording of their contentious ride was caputured on Salim’s cellphone.
According to a Daily Caller story below (highlights added), CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) co-founder Nihad Awad claims there are “historical accounts” proving that Muslims came to America before Columbus did. Seriously.
Awad’s preposterous claim hasn’t made it into our public school textbooks—yet. This is not to say school textbooks aren’t riddled with other absurdities in their treatment of Islam. (For instance, textbooks commonly claim that Muslim conquerors throughout history were “tolerant” of Christians and Jews and allowed them “full religious freedom,” which is patently false. You can see the textbook report ACT! for America Education published here.)
Last year CAIR launched a vicious and dishonest disinformation campaign against ALAC, “American Laws for American Courts” legislation that we’ve helped pass in Tennessee, Arizona and Kansas, and we expect CAIR to do that again this year.
So here’s a heads-up to every person reading this email, from concerned citizen to grassroots activist to journalist to state legislator:
When CAIR comes around this year peddling its so-called “fact sheet” about ALAC, remember that this is the same group that claims Muslims discovered America.
Muslims discovered the Americas long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492, the head of a D.C.-based jihad-linked Islamic lobbying group told a Saudi TV station Dec. 27.
“There are historical accounts according to which the Muslims preceded Columbus, who is said to have discovered the U.S.,” claimed Nihad Awad, the co-founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations.
“Some documents and accounts indicate that Muslim seafarers were the first to reach the U.S., [so] the bottom line is that Islam played a part in the establishment and development of the U.S.,” Awad told the Saudi interviewer, in an interview in a New York studio.
CAIR did not respond to The Daily Caller’s request for an explanation of Awad’s comments, which were recorded by the Middle East Media Research Institute.
Awad’s group bills itself as a “civil rights” group, but five of its former employees have been jailed or deported for terror offenses, and FBI officials refuse to meet Awad because of his ties to jihadi groups, such as Hamas.
Awad’s claim was made during an interview in which he argued that Muslims can settle in the U.S. without violating Islam’s myriad Sharia rules about religion, diet, speech, friendships, work and political loyalty.
“Islam flourishes in an atmosphere of freedom, and [it] spreads freedom, justice, and equality,” he claimed. “Every day I live as an American-Muslim citizen, I rediscover the firm bonds between the humane system that the U.S. created for its people, and the values advocated by Islam,” he claimed.
However, Islam’s Sharia laws curb religious freedom, speech, and political activism, and also subordinate non-Muslims and women to orthodox Muslim men. Sharia is enforced in Saudi Arabia, Iran, much of Afghanistan and increasingly in Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia and Libya, all of which were recently governed by secular laws.
Awad’s claim is part of a broader campaign by Islamist groups to encourage Muslims to settle in the United States and Europe. From 610 to 632, Islam’s founder, Mohammad, reputedly urged his followers to spread Islam by both conquest and emigration.
Via Daily Caller:
Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi headlined a high-dollar fundraiser in May that was attended by U.S.-based Islamist groups and individuals linked by the U.S. government to the Hamas jihad group and to the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood movement.
The donors at the undisclosed May 16 event included Nihad Awad, the co-founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations, according to data provided by the nonpartisan Investigative Project on Terrorism.
The CAIR group was named an unindicted conspirator in a 2007 trial of a Hamas money-smuggling group.
A covertly-taken photograph provided by the IPT shows Pelosi standing near Awad at the fundraiser. Roughly 30 people attended the fundraiser, according to the IPT.
The cheapest tickets cost $5,000, and the most expensive were $30,800 per couple, according to the event invite from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which used the cash to fund Democratic candidates.
Washington, DC January 11, 2012: The decision earlier this week by a federal appeals court to not reverse a federal judge’s order blocking implementation of a constitutional amendment passed in Oklahoma to prohibit courts from enforcing shariah law in the state, albeit unfortunate, was predictable. However, the decision need not hinder the effort to protect constitutional rights from the encroachment of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, such as shariah, into American state courts.
The well-meaning Oklahoma amendment appeared reasonable on its face, and was hailed as a step in the right direction to preserve American sovereignty and prevent the incorporation of shariah law into American courts and institutions. The bill’s supporters wanted, rightly, to prevent the European mistake of allowing parallel shariah court systems, which have denied legal rights to Muslim citizens and prevented full integration of immigrants into Western society. Over 70% of the Oklahoma electorate supported the bill’s principle of preventing “foreign laws in general, and Islamic Sharia law in particular, from overriding state or U.S. laws.”
Unfortunately, the Oklahoma amendment may have been a distraction from more carefully researched and drafted bills designed to prevent the entry of unconstitutional foreign laws such as shariah in American jurisprudence.
There is an effective alternative to the Oklahoma amendment and its various copycats around the country– the American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation, backed by the American Public Policy Alliance (http://publicpolicyalliance.org).
ALAC has already been passed into law in three states — Tennessee (April 2010), Louisiana (June 2010), and Arizona (May 2011) — and has not suffered any legal challenges, because there is simply no legitimate basis on which to challenge ALAC. In contrast, the Oklahoma amendment was attacked by the ACLU and CAIR in federal court within days of passage. ALAC remedies any technical or legal flaws in the Oklahoma amendment.
The American Laws for American Courts Act is now progressing through legislatures in dozens of states.
Critics, such as the ACLU and CAIR, have claimed that any legislation to protect Americans from the imposition of foreign law, including shariah, is unnecessary. However, research by the Center for Security Policy published in the report, “Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases” (http://shariahinamericancourts.com/) uncovered dozens of cases across 23 states in which litigants attempted to invoke shariah–sometimes successfully, and often to the detriment of women and children.
ALAC, which prevents foreign law and proceedings from violating fundamental constitutional rights, has been endorsed by Muslim Americans, Jewish faith leaders and Christian religious leaders, as well as several prominent national security professionals.
ALAC will succeed where the Oklahoma Amendment has not.
For more information visit http://www.publicpolicyalliance.org
Washington, DC, September 19th, 2011- On Election Day 2010, Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved State Question 755 (the “Save Our State Amendment”) that would prevent “foreign laws in general, and Islamic Sharia law in particular, from overriding state or U.S. laws.” While the concerns of the voters were well founded in regards to the increasing use of foreign legal rulings into state court decisions (see Shariahinamericancourts.com), the tool used to combat it was imprecise and vulnerable to Constitutional challenges.
The American Public Policy Alliance—promoters of “American Laws for American Courts” (ALAC) legislation passed in three states—responded to new challenges on Oklahoma’s State Question 755 by stressing the differences between the two approaches. ALAC is a facially neutral bill which seeks to ban foreign law from entering American courts when it infringes upon the Constitution.
An article from the Center for Security Policy’s Christopher Holton in the American Thinker describes these differences.
American Laws for American Courts
By: Christopher Holton
On Monday, September 12, 2011, the 10th Circuit Court held a hearing on the constitutionality challenge to the Oklahoma state constitutional amendment, passed overwhelmingly in November of 2010, to prevent courts in Oklahoma from using international law or shariah law in their decisions. Dubbed the “Save Our State” amendment and referred to officially as State Question 755 (SQ 755), the initiative stated:
The Courts provided for in subsection A of this section, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Oklahoma statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.
This well-meaning amendment seemed reasonable at first glance and was hailed in conservative circles as a step in the right direction to preserve American sovereignty and prevent the incorporation of shariah law into American courts and institutions. The bill’s supporters wanted, rightly, to prevent the European mistake of allowing parallel shariah court systems, which have denied legal rights to Muslim citizens and prevented full integration into Western society. And 70% of the Oklahoma electorate supported the bill’s principles of preventing “foreign laws in general, and Islamic Sharia law in particular, from overriding state or U.S. laws.”
But first glances can be deceiving. In fact, the reality is very different.
Unfortunately, SQ 755 has had the opposite of its intended effect. It has proven to be a boon to its opponents, and a distraction from the more carefully drafted bills designed to prevent both the entry of unconstitutional foreign laws such as shariah in American jurisprudence and the use of transnationalism by activist judges.
SQ 755 contains several flaws, some legal and some practical. The legal flaws have already been exposed in the federal courts, which have effectively quarantined the amendment from being implemented. Here is a summary of the flaws in SQ 755, Oklahoma’s Save Our State amendment:
- SQ 755 is not facially neutral, because it specifies shariah law.
- SQ 755 contains what appears to be a blanket ban on the use of international law or the laws of foreign nations. While this may seem like a good idea at first glance, from a practical standpoint it may interfere unnecessarily in the right to contract and could serve as an impediment to international commerce. In essence, if someone in Oklahoma, or a business or corporation in Oklahoma, wants to sign a contract with provisions of foreign or international law, they can do so. This is not an uncommon practice in business in these times, and throwing such agreements out of Oklahoma courts simply based on the fact that they contain elements of foreign law could in fact place Oklahoma corporations at a disadvantage in having to have all disputes adjudicated away from home.
- SQ 755 is too vague. It does not give the courts specific enough instructions with regard to such complex legal issues as comity and choice of forum. This could create loopholes for activist judges.
- Practically speaking, SQ 755 is defective if its aim is to prevent the enforcement of shariah laws in America. The bill bans the use of shariah in decisions without defining what shariah is. Judges in the U.S., Oklahoma being no exception, are not generally educated or informed about shariah. They cannot be expected to recognize shariah. If a question arises in a case as to whether some aspect of a conflict comprises shariah or not, a judge will be forced to consult an outside expert or source to make a determination. In almost every circumstance, that outside expert or source will end up being a shariah scholar or the work of a shariah scholar. So, ironically, the very law that is designed to prevent shariah from working its way into our legal system will have invited shariah experts in to make rulings.
- 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’ constitutional rights or state public policy would be violated in the process. This is very different from a blanket ban on foreign laws. ALAC also contains a specific provision for corporations and businesses so as not to interfere with commerce; it exempts Native American laws; it specifically says that the law cannot detract from the right to free exercise of religion, which would include religious courts like Jewish Bet Din or Catholic ecclesiastical courts; and it states that the law would not interfere with compliance with international treaties the U.S. has signed.
- ALAC is not vague. It provides specific instructions for judges on complex legal issues involving comity and choice of forum, thus closing potential loopholes for activist judges.
- 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 in many cases, 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 fifty cases in 23 states where shariah law had been introduced into state court cases, including many 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 laws.
It is important that activists, legislators, and the media recognize the flaws in Oklahoma’s SQ 755, so that they do not use it as a model.
Fortunately, most legislators have already made the right choice. The American Laws for American Courts Act — already passed in three states and never challenged in court — is progressing through legislatures in several states with two-year or year-round sessions, and is either scheduled to be introduced or under consideration in over 25 additional states for the coming legislative session.
On August 31, 2011, the initiative received an important endorsement when the Michigan version of the American Laws for American Courts bill was endorsed by a prominent group of American Muslims opposed to the enforcement of shariah law in America: the American Islamic Leadership Coalition. The model American Laws for American Courts Act on which the Michigan bill is based has already been endorsed by a former CIA director; a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency; a former inspector general for the Defense Department; and dozens of lawyers, law professors, rabbis, clergy, and community leaders across the country as “the 21st Century civil rights initiative to ensure constitutional liberties for all Americans.”
Christopher Holton is Vice President for Outreach at the Center for Security Policy. Mr. Holton came to the Center after serving as president and marketing director of Blanchard & Co. and editor-in-chief of the Blanchard Economic Research Unit from 1990 to 2003. As chief of the Blanchard Economic Research Unit in 2000, he conceived and commissioned the Center for Security Policy special report “Clinton’s Legacy: The Dangerous Decade.” Holton is a member of the Board of Advisers of WorldTribune.com.
(The American Public Policy Alliance (APPA), a non-partisan advocacy organization dedicated to government transparency, government accountability and the constitutionality of U.S. and state laws and policies, is working with legislators nationwide on policies and initiatives. Along with allied organizations, APPA is working to defend free speech, preserve and promote human rights, maintain the strength of our U.S. and state constitutions, and aid and promote public safety.)
One of the greatest threats to American values and liberties today comes from foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines which have been influencing our legal system at the municipal, state and federal levels. This phenomenon is known as “transnationalism” and includes the increasingly frequent appearance of Islamic Shariah law. APPA focuses largely on combating this process across a broad variety of issues.
There they go again. Friday, the Center for American Progress released “Fear, Inc.,” yet another report in the increasingly hysterical bullying campaign to shout down criticism of political Islamist efforts to influence American foreign and domestic policy. Their latest “copy and paste” effort duplicates large sections of five nearly identical “investigations” just this year, complaining that millions of concerned Americans are Islamophobes.
The primary organizations– what should be called the “Shariah Defense Lobby”– are the Center for American Progress/ThinkProgress, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) with support from a handful of other far-left or Islamist bloggers and Washington lobbyists.
The “Shariah Defense Lobby” whitewashes and protects political, legal, military and religious doctrines of Shariah law (Islamic law) from scrutiny. One of its major goals is to silence all criticism of Islamist aggression, jihadist violence, or Shariah violations of human rights and civil liberties.
Frank J. Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, noted that:
The ‘Shariah Defense Lobby’ is in a race against time to hide the grim reality of Shariah law as it is actually enforced, as Islamist movements and political parties throughout the Arab world are aggressively seeking to govern by Shariah. Most significantly, the ‘Shariah Defense Lobby’ refuses to discuss a simple fact: secular and democratic activists in Egypt and elsewhere in the Muslim world oppose Shariah in their countries, just as Americans oppose it here.
The latest report also attacks venerable American family foundations for supporting educational efforts on national security and counter-terrorism. The funding sources of the “Shariah Defense Lobby” should be exposed to public scrutiny. For example, CAIR– an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror financing trial in American history– has reportedly received millions in foreign funding from Islamist contributors, including the Organization of Islamic Conference (aka Cooperation). This year, CAIR lost its nonprofit tax status because of its refusal to file tax forms that would have revealed its sources of funding.
In addition to CAIR’s foreign financing, this latest paper from the Center for American Progress reveals that the project depends on money from the Open Society Foundations, a funding vehicle of far-left billionaire George Soros. George Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC. He has amassed a personal fortune estimated at about $14.5 billion (as of 2011). His company, Soros Fund Management, controls at least another $27.9 billion in investor assets. Soros’s foundation network– whose flagship is the Open Society Institute (OSI)– has reportedly dispensed billions to a multitude of far left organizations.
The “Shariah Defense Lobby,” which aggressively defends Shariah from its critics, has produced a year-long campaign of remarkably identical agitprop papers, all with a single goal: to attack the millions of Americans who are concerned about political Islamists’ growing power here in the U.S. and abroad. In these increasingly shrill reports, the “Shariah Defense Lobby” keeps attempting to silence the great majority of Americans who express legitimate concerns about home-grown Islamist terrorism, and about Islamist efforts to enforce Shariah law on American Muslim families and even on non-Muslim Americans.
The Center for American Progress– authors of “Fear, Inc.”– are trying to make Americans afraid of discussing one of the greatest national security threats we face. Thankfully, the American people aren’t buying what they’re selling: the campaign is having the opposite effect of what the Lobby intends.
Selected Papers from the Shariah Defense Lobby ‘Copy-and-Paste’ Essay Series
January 2011: Thomas Cincotta, “Manufacturing the Muslim Menace: Private Firms, Public Servants and the Threat to Rights and Security” (Political Research Associates)
March 2011: Wajahat Ali and Matthew Duss, “Understanding Sharia Law” (Center for American Progress)
May 2011: “Nothing to Fear: Debunking the Mythical ‘Shariah Threat’ to Our Judicial System” (American Civil Liberties Union)
June 2011: Corey Saylor, et al. “Same Hate, New Target: Islamophobia and Its Impact in the United States” (Council on American Islamic Relations and University of California at Berkeley)
June 2011: Robert Steinback, “Jihad against Islam” (Southern Poverty Law Center)
August 2011: Wajahat Ali, Eli Clifton, Matt Duss, Lee Fang, Scott Keyes, Faiz SHakir, “Fear Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America” (Center for American Progress)
(The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org.)
The CAIR-Chicago post below falls into the category of “you’ve got to be kidding me!”
CAIR-Chicago is objecting to a curriculum used in the Chicago school district. CAIR-Chicago’s complaint?
The worksheets in question, produced by MindSparks, a California based educational resource company, teaches students that the religion of Islam is oppressive towards women, inherently violent, and played an important role in harboring slavery.
CAIR-Chicago claims verses from the Qur’an used in this curriculum are “taken out of context.” This is a typical response from Muslim Brotherhood front organizations like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). The problem is, anyone who has ever read the Qur’an knows two things:
1) There is very little “context” to its writings.
2) It does contain numerous passages that make clear women hold second-class status to men, that call for violent jihad against “infidels,” and that sanction the taking of slaves in the prosecution of jihad.
Finally, we see what appears to be a factual rendering of the history of Islam. For instance, the curriculum states, accurately, that “slavery was common in Islam.” Various historians and scholars estimate that between 14 and 18 million Africans were enslaved by Muslims from the 7th century to the 12th century.
CAIR-Chicago clearly wants to rewrite history because it obviously doesn’t want Chicago high school students to be exposed to these “inconvenient truths.”
While the high school is not mentioned in the post below, you can contact the Chicago public schools office via email and thank the school for using this curriculum. Encourage them to retain the curriculum and resist the interference of CAIR-Chicago, which is part of the national CAIR organization. Make sure you mention that CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in America’s history and that it has been identified by the Justice Department as linked to the terrorist organization Hamas.
No school district should be paying any attention to CAIR or any of its local affiliates.
Staff Attorney Rabya Khan Meets with High School Regarding Anti-Muslim Worksheets
CAIR-Chicago l August 16, 2011
By Ben Small, Communications Intern
CAIR-Chicago Staff Attorney Rabya Khan met with officials at a Chicago-area high school on Monday, August 15th, regarding a complaint CAIR-Chicago received by a parent alleging that the high school’s social studies class is distributing misleading worksheets on Islam. The worksheets in question, produced by MindSparks, a California based educational resource company, teaches students that the religion of Islam is oppressive towards women, inherently violent, and played an important role in harboring slavery.
One of the readings contains verses from the Quran which are quoted out-of-context wrongly giving the impression that women are considered inferior to men. A corresponding worksheet then asks: “The Qur’an stresses the equality of all believers. Yet many say its views about men and women definitely give men more power. How does the top passage here from the Qu’ran support this view?” The reading is accompanied by a photo of two women in burqa, a full-body covering worn by only a minority of Muslim women worldwide. The inauthentic translation, imagery, and presentation of information leads students to a biased conclusion about the status of men and women in Islam.
Another reading implies that slavery was an encouraged practice in Islam, and then the corresponding worksheet states “Slavery was common in Islam; however, it took several very different forms. […] Prepare a brief talk to the class on what you learn about these two forms of slavery. Title your talk, “Slavery’s Many Forms in the Islamic World.”” Wrongly suggesting some sort of link between slavery and Islam. In reality, the Qu’ran strongly condemned slavery and offered enticing rewards to those who freed slaves. Prophet Muhammad himself freed numerous slaves and the situation for slaves greatly improved with the advent of Islam.
In the MindSparks’ textbook The Rise of the Modern Middle East, lesson titles include “Islam and Islamic Radicalism”. The parent who brought these reading materials to CAIR-Chicago’s attention expressed concern that that over emphasis on the small number of radical Muslims in the world will reinforce stereotypes that link Islam and terrorism and that students will not receive a balanced understanding of Islam and Muslims.
Rabya Khan met with school officials to convey the importance of presenting balanced perspectives and not perpetuating stereotypes. CAIR-Chicago has requested that the school remove the worksheets, and not use them again or any similar worksheets. Rabya also provided a resource list of organizations that can conduct workshops on Islam, including CAIR-Chicago, and is compiling a list of educational resource companies with balanced materials on Islam and Muslims.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
American Public Policy Alliance Spokesman Stephen Gelé Responds
to CAIR-MI Attacks on American Laws for American Courts
MEDIA ALERT: **Mr. Gelé will be on “Follow the Money with Eric Bolling” on Fox Business at approximately 10:40pm EST tonight to discuss protests in Michigan against the legislation. His statement from earlier today is below**
Washington, DC, August 16th, 2011 - Stephen Gelé, spokesperson for the American Public Policy Alliance, issued the following statement in response to the mistaken protests in Michigan against HB 4769:
Rep. Dave Agema has been unfairly attacked by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization that was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing conviction in U.S. history. CAIR falsely characterizes Rep. Agema’s HB4769 American Laws for American Courts bill for Michigan as “unconstitutionally” targeting “Islamic principles.”
The American Laws for American Courts bill’s sole objective is to protect all U.S. citizens and residents from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation, in the specific matter at issue, of a liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or the public policies of the state in question. Such violations would include infringements on due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, equal protection, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of the state.
Rep. Agema’s bill is constitutional, facially neutral and in the two years since its passage in three other state legislatures it has never been challenged in court.
Reviews of court records provide extensive evidence that foreign laws and legal doctrines have been introduced into U.S. state court cases, including, notably, Shariah law, which is applied in courts in dozens of foreign nations.
Unfortunately, because state legislatures have not been explicit about what the public policy is relative to application of foreign laws in state courts, the courts and the litigants have repeatedly failed to recognize that granting comity to a foreign judgment may be at odds with our state and federal constitutional principles in the specific matters at issue.
The American Laws for American Courts bill is carefully limited in scope, recognizing the need to balance individual liberties with other legal principles:
[list type="tick"] [li]
• The American Laws For American Courts bill does not apply to a business entity that contracts to subject itself to foreign law in a jurisdiction other than the state or the United States.
• The American Laws for American Courts bill does not interfere with the right of any individual to freely exercise his or her religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
• The American Laws for American Courts bill does not conflict with any federal treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.
The goal of HB 4769 is a clear and unequivocal application of what should be the goal of all state courts: No U.S. citizen or resident should be denied the liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed in our constitutional republic.
American Laws for American Courts is needed especially to protect women and children, identified by international human rights organizations as the primary victims of discriminatory foreign laws.
Far from targeting those practicing the Islamic faith, the American Laws for American Courts legislation actually seeks to ensure that American Muslim families have the same constitutional protections and liberties as other Americans.
Opponents of the American Laws for American Courts bill exhibit indifference to American Muslim families who have already been denied equal protection and due process by American courts applying shariah law from the legal systems of foreign, oppressive regimes. Indeed, every concern raised by opponents at today’s press conference was irrelevant to the legislation.
The legislation, designed to protect American litigants from the application of foreign legal doctrines, recognizes that, for decades, through a misguided use of comity (a deference to foreign legal judgments), American courts have applied laws from nations such as Pakistan, Lebanon, Egypt and even Iran, often denying Americans their constitutional rights. These Americans, nearly all women, often came to America to escape the harsh and discriminatory doctrines of Shariah law, only to have those doctrines enforced in our state courts. A report entitled “Shariah Law and American State Courts,” addresses 50 sample cases (http://www.shariahinamericancourts.com) involving shariah law in American courts. Ten of those cases are briefly summarized below (see “Ten American Families and Shariah in American State Courts”).
Despite the completely unfounded accusation laid by CAIR, these cases enforcing shariah do not involve the exercise of religion, but issues of secular law commonly adjudicated in American courts, such as sexual assault, divorce, spousal support and child custody. Shariah rules governing issues of family law are regularly enforced by the authority of the state as a legal code in numerous foreign countries. Judgments from these courts have repeatedly reached American shores to be imposed upon Muslim families in our state courts.
Critics, such as CAIR, not only ignore the dozens of published legal cases involving the application of shariah law in American courts, but also misinform Americans regarding easily verifiable facts, such as the actual content of this protective legislation. Rather than acknowledging the relevant jurisprudence, and accurately describing the curative legislation, CAIR impugns their fellow Americans who seek to ensure constitutional equal protection, due process and civil liberties for all Americans, especially American Muslims who are denied their rights through courts imposing foreign laws contrary to our Constitution.
Below are ten cases (excerpted from “Shariah Law and American State Courts“).
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.
Ten American Families and Shariah in American State Courts
- Joohi Q. Hosain (FKA Malik) V. Anwar Malik, (http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?p=124 ), Shariah law of Pakistan, Maryland, 1996: Trial and Appellate Courts upheld foreign Shariah law and denied mother custody. She lost custody because going to custody hearing in Pakistan would have risked prison, torture or execution.
- Laila Adeeb Sawaya Malak v. Abdul Latif Malak (http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?p=77 ), Shariah law of Lebanon/UAE, California, 1986: Appellate Court upheld foreign Shariah law and denied mother custody, reversing Trial Court.
- Parveen Chaudry v. M. Hanif Chaudry, M.D., (http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?p=155 ), Shariah law of Pakistan, New Jersey, 1978: Appellate Court upheld foreign Shariah law, overturned Trial Court. Wife denied support and child support and division of property; prenuptial agreement signed by parents giving her only $1,500 from marriage upheld by Appellate Court.
- In re the Custody Of R., minor child. Dato Paduka Noordin v. Datin Laila Abdulla, (http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?p=228 , Shariah law of Philippines, Washington, 1997: Trial Court upheld foreign Shariah law of Philippines (which has parallel Shariah court system) granting father custody; Appellate Court reverses, allowing mother to contest Philippines Shariah court custody decision.
- S.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.J.R., (http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?p=197 ), Shariah law of Morocco, New Jersey, 2010: Pregnant mother is beaten and raped by her husband, Trial Court refuses restraining order citing foreign Shariah law, Appellate court reverses and grants restraining order.
- Pamela Tazziz VS. Ismail Tazziz (http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?p=133 ), Shariah law of Israel, Massachusetts, 1988: Trial Court upheld foreign Shariah law of Israel (which has parallel Shariah court system ) requiring mother of four children to bring family to Shariah hearing; Appellate Court reversed.
- Saida Banu Tarikonda, , v. Bade Saheb Pinjari (http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?p=139 ), Shariah law of India, Michigan, 2009: The Trial Court accepted a Talaq divorce (the husband says “I divorce you” three times, no prior notice to wife required). The Appellate Court reversed.
- Irfan Aleem v. Farah Aleem (http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?p=126 ), Shariah law of Pakistan, Maryland, 2007: Trial Court rejected argument permitting a foreign Shariah law Talaq divorce to prevent community division of property; Appellate Court upheld.
- Magda Sobhy Ahmed Amin v. Abdelrahman Sayed Bakhaty (http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?p=114 ), Shariah law of Egypt and Lebanon, Louisiana, 2001: Mother convicted under foreign Shariah law of Egypt for leaving Egypt with child for U.S. without husband’s permission; Under Egyptian Shariah law, father files for divorce and custody; Trial Court and Appellate court do not grant comity.
- Bita Donboli, Respondent, and Nader Donboli (http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?p=236 ),Shariah law of Iran, Washington, 2005: Mother is dual citizen of U.S. and Iran, alleges beatings, not allowed to leave Iran with son without husband permission, and refuses to comply with foreign Iranian Shariah law custody decree. Trial and Appellate Courts uphold her position.
- [list type="tick"] [li]
The American Public Policy Alliance (APPA), a non-partisan advocacy organization dedicated to government transparency, government accountability and the constitutionality of U.S. and state laws and policies, is working with legislators nationwide on policies and initiatives. Along with allied organizations, APPA is working to defend free speech, preserve and promote human rights, maintain the strength of our U.S. and state constitutions, and aid and promote public safety.
One of the greatest threats to American values and liberties today comes from foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines which have been influencing our legal system at the municipal, state and federal levels. This phenomenon is known as “transnationalism” and includes the increasingly frequent appearance of Islamic Shariah law. APPA focuses largely on combating this process across a broad variety of issues.
I’ve been wanting to write another piece on my congressman Ed Royce from California’s 40th district for some time now but other topic and issues had been getting in the way. But with Memorial Day upon us this i sthe perfect time to announce that TMR is awarding Congressmen Ed Royce with the Defending America’s freedom man of the year award. In addition to fighting taxes congressman Ed Royce is a terrorism warrior who fights day in and day out to keep our country safe as the Chairman of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade Subcommittee.
Congratulations Congressman on a job well done!
Additionally, Congressman Royce has been in the news quite a bit over the last couple of months and demonstrating exactly why I’m not only glad to be represented by this conservative powerhouse but why he’s working hard for all Americans.
Today, Rep. Royce, Chairman of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade Subcommittee, questions an expert panel about the impact of the death of Osama bin Laden on the Al Qaeda terrorist network and U.S. counter-terrorism policy.
This follows an op-ed the congressman wrote in the OC Register entitled Osama’s views live on in Pakistan where he asks the pertinent questions on everyone’s mind:
There are many unanswered questions about the role of Pakistan’s intelligence services, deemed a “state within a state,” in the sheltering and killing of bin Laden. We should know more in the coming days, but the bottom line is that bin Laden was tracked to a fortified compound in a military town in an area popular with retired Pakistani military. It is implausible that Pakistani security was not in some way helping him. Some are suggesting that he has been there for as long as five years.
It is not as if bin Laden doesn’t have friends in Pakistan, where there have been demonstrations protesting his killing. The Pakistani government was already on shaky ground, facing a growing radicalism among its people. The country’s secular political figures are routinely assassinated. President Zardari’s government will come under intense criticism for “allowing” our operation against bin Laden.
On immigration, Ed Royce is a stalwart and has always held the Tea Party / Conservative line:
On Fiscal Responsibility Ed Royce writes:
As the clock winds down on the second funding bill for the remainder of the fiscal year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said his party doesn’t want more spending cuts.
“We can’t go anymore,” said Reid, D-Nev.
What has passed so far is $10 billion in cuts, which is less than 1 percent of the federal budget.
Really, is this all they can do?
On the other side of the Capitol, House Republicans passed HR1, a bill to fund the federal government through the rest of the year and cut spending by $100 billion. This bill has been languishing in the Senate since winter – nearly 50 days. Reid and Senate Democrats have failed to match our efforts and produce an alternative. This isn’t surprising. Last year, he and his Democratic cohorts were unable to produce a budget, and the Senate didn’t pass a single appropriations bill. That is why we are still debating funding for the current fiscal year, which is more than half over.
So as Democrats continue to push for the status quo and refuse to concede just a few billion dollars in this year’s funding bill, the House Republicans are taking the next step in significantly cutting the size and scope of the federal government. Leading this effort is Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who introduced this week a budget plan that would cut $6 trillion over the next decade beginning in October (the start of fiscal 2012).
His budget, which would go a long way in addressing our looming debt crisis, was described by The Wall Street Journal as “the most serious attempt to reform government in a generation.” I applaud him for this undertaking.
No one on the Democratic side has produced a plan that actually puts our country on a path toward fiscal responsibility, including the president. In fact, President Barack Obama’s budget plan never produces a balanced budget. It continues the status quo and does not touch the drivers of our national debt – the unsustainable entitlement programs. The president’s own economic advisors say the current policy cannot continue.
Back in March, Ed Royce, challenged Obama’s pick to head up Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Elizabeth Warren saying:
Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., argued that the CFPB, which was created under Dodd-Frank, “will be able to act outside the normal appropriations process” as neither the Fed nor Congress will have a say on the agency’s budget, which means the agency “will not be held accountable” for its actions. Congress tried this appropriations model with the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae andFreddie Mac, Royce said. “It did not work.”
Warren countered by saying:
Let me remind you of the [agency’s] structure: It is the only agency in all of government whose rules can be overruled, negated by other agencies,” she said. Under Dodd-Frank, “other agencies can come in under the Financial Stability Oversight Council and say, ‘We don’t like that rule.’” The CFPB, she continued, “should have the same independence” as the banking regulators that are funded outside of the political process.”
Proving the congressman’s point… what’s the point in creating a huge new bureaucracy that on one had has sweeping oversight powers that doesn’t answer to congress or the Fed and on the other hand a huge new bureaucracy who’s rules can be negated by other nameless agencies?Sounds like a cluster to me as I’m sure it did Ed Royce as well.
There is no doubt that there are many stars in the Republican party some in leadership, some tea party freshman, and some solid conservatives that like me were Tea Party Conservatives before there was a Tea Party movement congressman Ed Royce is one of those stars.
APRIL 26, 2011, WASHINGTON, DC: In a letter sent today to congressional leaders, the authors of a groundbreaking report entitled Shariah: The Threat to America called on the legislative branch to do something the executive branch seems determined not to undertake: A rigorous investigation of the extent to which the Muslim Brotherhood’s stealthy “civilization jihad” has gained access to and influence over the United States government, with grave implications for the national security.
The group known as “Team B II” includes experienced defense, intelligence and law enforcement practitioners – notably, former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey; Lieutentant Generals Harry E. Soyster and William G. Boykin, the former Defense Intelligence Agency Director and former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, respectively; former Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet Admiral James A. Lyons; and former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy.
Their letter provides a powerful rejoinder to the public address given yesterday by Attorney General Eric Holder. While General Holder insisted that his department (and presumably other government agencies) will continue their “outreach to all communities,” Team B II warned leaders on Capitol Hill: