Muslim Plan To Take Over America

[iris89]

Muslim Plan To Take Over America

Islam has a plan to take over the world and remove freedoms from everyone in the entire world by a piece meal method. Read the following article and learn the facts:

Muslim Enclaves U.S.A., Building the American Caliphate, One Enclave at a Time, by Ryan Mauro, FrontPage Magazine, July 9, 2010

www.islamist-watch.org/4404/muslim-enclaves-usa

It seems almost unthinkable, but Islamist groups are, as we speak, hard at work creating Muslim states-within-states in the U.S. Indeed, this process has been unfolding for a long time across the Western world, through the creation of isolated Muslim enclaves in both rural and urban areas, as well as through the designation of "no-go zones" where governments admit to having little authority over Muslims living there, essentially leaving them to function as autonomous regions.

Daniel Pipes has tracked numerous examples since 2004 of Muslim groups working to create communities based solely on Islam and run by Shari'a law. As discussed by David Kennedy Houck in 2006, "Although such concepts are antithetical to a free society, U.S. democracy allows the internal enclave to function beyond the established boundaries of our constitutional framework."

For example, one such community, Gwynn Oak, has been created in Baltimore, Maryland, consisting of Muslim immigrants and African-American converts. The project is led by John Yahya Cason, director of the Islamic Education and Community Development Initiative. Cason explained that the neighborhood is a response to the problem that "Muslim communities are ruled by Western societal tenets, many of which clash with Islamic norms." In his opinion, there is a need for communities with "the totality of the essential components of Muslim social, economic, and political structure." As such, the Gwynn Oak enclave follows specific moral rules based on Islam and people there speak Arabic. On September 13, 2009, the construction of its three-story mosque began. Approximately 400 Muslims now live in the vicinity.

Another example involves the Islamic Center for Human Excellence, which receives funding from the United Arab Emirates. In August 2004, it was granted permission to build a Muslim neighborhood in Little Rock, Arkansas, complete with a mosque, school, and 22 homes; it would not allow the presence of alcohol. The goal was for Muslims to find an area to escape the alleged crime and depravity of American life, although the imam behind the effort said that non-Muslims are welcome to join.

Far more radical groups than these are now taking the lead in promoting and creating Islamic enclaves on U.S. soil.

One such organization is As-Sabiqun, headed by Imam Abdul Alim Musa, who is very honest about his disturbing objectives. The group's website calls for installing Islamic law worldwide, fighting for "oppressed" Muslims, and "build[ing] model communities where Islam is lived." The website contains a point-by-point plan to assemble mini-states in America, beginning with the construction of a mosque and finishing with "establishing geographical integrity by encouraging Muslims of the community to live in close proximity to the masjid [mosque]" and "establishing social welfare institutions."

The ideology espoused by Musa and As-Sabiqun is undeniably radical. The website boasts about Musa's early endorsement of Ayatollah Khomeini and the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. It also is unafraid to say that As-Sabiqun members follow people like Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood; Maulana Mawdudi, who called on Muslims to wage jihad until Shari'a law is in place over the globe; and Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood member whose preaching inspired Osama bin Laden. Musa himself has argued that the CIA and Israel were behind the 9/11 attacks. He has admitted that he "like" bin Laden, calls Hezbollah "a great organization," and says Hamas members are "very nice people."
Muslims of the Americas, led by Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani in Pakistan, is a very similar group with very similar aims, though its focus is more rural than urban. It admits to owning at least 22 "villages" around the country that are dozens of acres large and operate under names like "Islamberg," "Holy Islamville," and "Aliville." These Muslim-only lands are open to outsiders solely during planned outreach events and sometimes to journalists.

This group has received considerable media attention due to allegations that its isolated compounds are used for paramilitary training, an accusation bolstered by a videotape released by the Christian Action Network. On that tape, a speaker is seen declaring the U.S. a Muslim country and pledging that Muslims of the Americas will defend American Muslims from foreign and domestic enemies.
The ideology of Muslims of the Americas is comparable to that of As-Sabiqun, although it is more centered on following Gilani as a representative of God who is capable of creating miracles. Gilani is very anti-Semitic, describing Jews as "an example of human Satans"; like Musa, he insists that a Jewish-Zionist conspiracy is behind the attacks of September 11, 2001, and other schemes to harm Muslims. He calls bin Laden a "Saudi activist," while claiming to meet with Jesus and personally to have introduced the Mahdi to a select few.

The Department of Homeland Security says that Muslims of the Americas is linked to Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a Pakistani terrorist group. The State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism report in 1998 described ul-Fuqra as an "Islamic sect that seeks to purify Islam through violence." Other fronts for the group include the International Quranic Open University, the United Muslim-Christian Forum, the Islamic Post newspaper, the Muslim Scouts of America, the Hands to Hands charity, Muslim Vets, the American Muslim Medical and Relief Team, and the Islamic Naat Group.

Another collective aspiring to create autonomous Muslim regions in the U.S. is called the Ummah. On October 28, 2009, the FBI tried to arrest one of its leaders, Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah, for his involvement in criminal activity alongside some of his followers. A shootout ensued that took the life of Abdullah and one police dog. Like Muslims of the Americas, Abdullah offered his flock martial arts training and, in some cases, firearms instruction. He also had his own armed security team and preached war against the U.S. government and solidarity with bin Laden, the Taliban, and Hezbollah.

The FBI describes the Ummah as a "nationwide radical fundamentalist Sunni group consisting mainly of African-Americans" and says that its goal is to create "a separate, sovereign Islamic state ('the Ummah') within the borders of the United States, governed by Shari'a law. The Ummah is to be ruled over by Jamil Abdullah al-Amin, formerly known as H. Rap Brown." The death of Luqman Ameen Abdullah did not destroy this aim.

Although the Muslim Brotherhood and its American affiliates are not directly trying to create Islam-based towns within the U.S., they are helpful to the efforts to do so. The Council on American-Islamic Relations' Michigan branch rushed to Abdullah's defense and the American Muslim Taskforce demanded an investigation into his death. In addition, various Brotherhood affiliates have given Musa speaking platforms, including at major universities.

Also involved is Kenny Gamble, a major music producer who now goes by the name of Luqman Abdul Haqq. Gamble has been accused of trying to create a "black Muslim enclave" in Philadelphia, closely following the plan put forth by As-Sabiqun. Notably, he has a leadership position with the Muslim Alliance in North America; Abdullah also served as a leader of MANA and Musa's name was once listed there, but has since been removed. This suggests some level of cooperation among these groups and individuals for their common goals.
The possibility that Muslim-only towns and urban enclaves could be created inside the U.S. seems like a fantasy to most Americans at the moment, but there is precedent in Europe. The French government actually has a website where it tabulates 751 "sensitive urban zones," which have been accurately described as "no-go zones." In these areas, which are mostly populated by Muslim immigrants, there is a high level of crime and hostility to any governing authority, including law enforcement. Police officers do not regularly patrol the areas and they are as close to being autonomous regions as possible without the erecting of an actual parallel government.

The construction of the building blocks for similar Muslim enclaves and "no-go zones" in the U.S. is one of the most disturbing programs of Islamist groups. If successful, these territories will be the first to establish Shari'a law in the country, thus offering a profound challenge to America's constitutional order.
Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com, national security advisor to the Christian Action Network, and an intelligence analyst with the Asymmetric Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC). This article was sponsored by Islamist Watch.

[iris89]

The Specter of Muslim Disloyalty in America
by Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
September 13, 2010
www.meforum.org/2746/muslim-disloyalty-america
Islamist enmity for infidels, regularly manifested in the jihad, is by now moderately well known. Lesser known, however, but of equal concern, is the mandate for Muslims to be loyal to fellow Muslims and Islam — a loyalty that all too often translates into disloyalty to all things non-Muslim, including the American people and their government.
This dichotomy of loyalty to Muslims and enmity for infidels — which, incidentally, corresponds well with Islamic law's division of the world into the abode of war (deserving of enmity) and the abode of Islam (deserving of loyalty) — is founded on a Muslim doctrine called wala' wa bara' (best translated as "loyalty and enmity"). I first encountered this doctrine while translating various Arabic documents for The Al Qaeda Reader. In fact, the longest and arguably most revealing document I included in that volume is titled "Loyalty and Enmity" (pgs.63-115), compiled by Aymen Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's number two.
I say "compiled" because most of the words are direct quotes from the Koran, the Muslim prophet Muhammad, and Islam's jurists (i.e., this doctrine is not an "al-Qaeda" phenomenon but rather permeates the Islamicate worldview). Those interested are urged to read the whole treatise. For our purposes, however, a few key scriptures must suffice:
Koran 5:51 warns Muslims against "taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies … whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them," i.e., he becomes a non-believing "infidel," the worst thing in Islam. According to authoritative Muslim exegete, al-Tabari, Koran 5:51 means that the Muslim who "allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community." Similar scriptures include Koran 3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 58:22; the latter simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims — "even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin." Conversely, according to Muhammad, "A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim. He neither oppresses him nor humiliates him nor looks down upon him…. All things of a Muslim are inviolable for his brother in faith: his blood, his wealth, and his honor" — precisely those three things Islamic law singles out as not being vouchsafed to free infidels.
The problem here is that these scriptures are not mere words; American Muslims act on them. Consider the ongoing case of Nasser Abdo, an infantryman assigned to the 101st Airborne Division, who refuses to deploy to Afghanistan: "I don't believe I can involve myself in an army that wages war against Muslims. I don't believe I could sleep at night if I take part, in any way, in the killing of a Muslim…. I can't deploy with my unit to Afghanistan and participate in the war — I can't both deploy and be a Muslim." And why is that? "Abdo cited Islamic scholars and verses from the Quran [no doubt such as the above] as reasons for his decision to ask for separation from the Army." Indeed, his loyalty to foreign Afghani Muslims is such that, if he does not get discharged, "he will, apparently, be facing a prison sentence."
Rather than going quietly to prison, major Nidal Hasan went on the infamous Fort Hood killing spree, slaying thirteen Americans. Maintaining that "Muslims shouldn't kill Muslims," he was, like Abdo, adamant about not being deployed to a Muslim nation, his "worst nightmare." He was also "very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second," thereby showing where his true loyalty lay. Tabari's words come to mind: the Muslim who "allies with them [e.g., Americans] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community," i.e., he too becomes an infidel.
And of course there was sergeant Hasan Akbar, who was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait: "He launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq." Previous to the attack, he confessed to his diary: "I may not have killed any Muslims, but being in the army is the same thing. I may have to make a choice very soon on who to kill."
Nor is Muslim loyalty simply limited to the fear of killing fellow Muslims; rather, it is loyalty in the tribal sense (not surprising, since Islam transferred the tenacity of Arab tribal loyalty onto the umma, whereby Islam became a "super tribe," transcending race and language). Thus, for helping convict five Muslims who were plotting to kill American soldiers in the Fort Dix terrorism trial, Mahmoud Omar has been ostracized by the Muslim community. Why? Because "in a twisted way…their [the terrorists'] actions are understandable in the Muslim community." Omar adds, "For Muslims, we are all brothers, and I betrayed a brother"— echoing Muhammad's injunction: "A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim."
Prominent American Muslim jurists have further proclaimed that "It is forbidden to work for the FBI or for U.S. security services because these harm Muslims." Another Muslim jurist said it is permissible for Muslims to serve in the U.S. military — provided they are not "involved in fighting, harming, or even bothering Muslims at all." Similarly, the authoritative Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America issued a fatwa stating that it is "not permissible" for American Muslims to send aid, even food, to American troops serving in Muslim countries.
At this point, one may justly ask: if Muslim disloyalty to non-Muslims is a ubiquitous phenomenon, why are most examples limited to the military? Simple: Islam is primarily concerned with actual deeds; and the military is one of those rare institutions that requires people to demonstrate their loyalty through action, such as, by going to the frontlines and, if need be, combating America's enemies — even if they be one's coreligionists. It is therefore only natural that Muslim loyalty/disloyalty is primarily revealed in military related scenarios, including instrumental support via food or other aid. Concerning this latter, Muhammad said, "One [Muslim] who equips a person on his way to raid [the enemy's camps] in Allah's path [jihad] is considered to have the same status as the raider [jihadist]." The willing Muslim financial enabler of the infidel American soldier thus acquires the same infidel status.
As for all other instances that require Muslims to indicate their loyalty, the doctrine of taqiyya, which revolves around deceiving non-Muslims, offers relief, and is in fact essential for Muslim minorities living in America who want to uphold the doctrine of loyalty and enmity. Indeed, the Koran's primary justification for deception is in the context of loyalty: "Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels [non-Muslims] instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah — unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions" (Koran 3:28). Tabari explains this verse: "Only when you are in their [non-Muslims'] power, fearing for yourselves, are you to demonstrate friendship for them with your tongues, while harboring hostility toward them. But do not join them in the particulars of their infidelities, and do not aid them through any action against a Muslim."
In other words, when necessary, Muslims are permitted to feign friendship and loyalty to non-Muslims, or, in the words of Abu Darda, a pious companion of Muhammad, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them." Nearly fourteen-hundred years after these faithless words were uttered, American Muslim Tarik Shah, who was arrested for terrorist-related charges, echoed them in boast: "I could be joking and smiling [with infidels] and then cutting their throats in the next second."
At any rate, such is the symbiotic relationship that Islam's doctrines share: when the deceit, the charade is to no avail and the lives of fellow Muslims, whom are deserving of loyalty, become endangered, Muslims must then stand their ground, come what may. Thus an Akbar, Hasan, or Abdo may appear as perfectly loyal American citizens, until being required to prove their loyalty against Muslims. As Zawahiri puts it in his treatise, the Muslim may pretend, so long as he does "not undertake any initiative to support them [non-Muslims], commit sin, or enable [them] through any deed or killing or fighting against Muslims" (The Al Qaeda Reader, p.75).
The ramifications of this doctrine are clearly troubling, especially since far less than .1% of America's Muslims will ever be required to enlist in the U.S. military and deploy to Muslim nations. Yet this is the only scenario that determines whether Muslim loyalties lie with fellow Muslims or with fellow, albeit infidel, citizens. Moreover, it is one thing if the average American Muslim harbors loyalty to fellow Muslims, including terrorists such as al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. It is quite another if that Muslim happens to be in a position of authority in the United States. This observation naturally leads to a president who up to 24% of Americans and many Muslims believe is a clandestine Muslim and who at least appears to have been raised a Muslim: Barrack Hussein Obama.
While there is no proof that he is a Muslim — indeed, no less an authority than Jeremiah Wright, the fellow who used to bellow "God d**n America!" recently vouched for Obama's Christianity — the point here is simple: if an American president was a secret Muslim, and if he was lying about it, and even if he was secretly working to subvert the U.S. to Islam's advantage — not only would such an approach comport with Islam's doctrines on loyalty and deception, but it would have ample precedents, stretching back to the dawn of Islam. Such as when Muhammad commanded one Na'im bin Mas'ud, a convert from an adversarial tribe that refused to submit to Islam, to conceal his new Muslim identity, go back to his tribe — which he cajoled with a perfidious "You are my stock and my family, the dearest of men to me" — only to betray them to Islam.

[iris89]

When making gifts of mercy, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, that your gifts of mercy may be in secret; then your Father who is looking on in secret will repay you.—Matthew 6:3, 4.

Our hands usually work together. Therefore, not letting the left hand know what the right is doing means that we do not advertise our charitable deeds, even to those as close to us as our left hand is to our right hand. If we do not boast about our charity, our “gifts of mercy” will be in secret. Then our Father, “who is looking on in secret,” will repay us. Residing in the heavens and invisible to human eyes, our heavenly Father remains “in secret” as far as mankind is concerned. (John 1:18) Repayment from the one “looking on in secret” includes Jehovah’s bringing us into an intimate relationship with him, forgiving our sins, and granting us eternal life. (Prov. 3:32; John 17:3; Eph. 1:7) That is so much better than receiving praise from humans!

[iris89]

"Rushdie Rules" Reach Florida
by Daniel Pipes
Washington Times
September 21, 2010
www.danielpipes.org/8881/rushdie-rules-florida

Pastor Terry Jones' plan to burn copies of the Koran at his church in Gainesville, Florida, let it be emphasized, is a distasteful act that fits an ugly tradition. That said, two other points need be noted: Buying books and then burning them is an entirely legal act in the United States. Second, David Petraeus, Robert Gates, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama pressured Jones to cancel only because they feared Muslim violence against Americans if he proceeded. Indeed, despite Mr. Jones calling off the Koran burning, 5 Afghans and 14 Kashmiris died in protests against his plans.

That violence stems from Islamic law, the Shariah, which insists that Islam, and the Koran in particular, enjoy a privileged status. Islam ferociously punishes anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, who trespasses against Islam's sanctity. Codes in Muslim-majority states generally reflect this privilege; for example, Pakistan's blasphemy law, 295-C, punishes derogatory remarks about Muhammad with execution.

No less important, Shariah denigrates the sanctities of other religions, a tradition manifested in recent years by the destruction of the Buddhist Bamiyan statues and the desecration of the Jewish Tomb of Joseph and the Christian Church of the Nativity. A 2003 decree ruled the Bible suitable for use by Muslims when cleaning after defecation. Iranian authorities reportedly burned hundreds of Bibles in May. This imbalance, whereby Islam enjoys immunity and other religions are disparaged, has long prevailed in Muslim-majority countries.

Then, in 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini abruptly extended this double standard to the West when he decreed that British novelist Salman Rushdie be executed on account of the blasphemies in his book, The Satanic Verses. With this, Khomeini established the Rushdie Rules, which still remain in place. They hold that whoever opposes "Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran" may be put to death; that anyone connected to the blasphemer must also be executed; and that all Muslims should participate in an informal intelligence network to carry out this threat.

Self-evidently, these rules contradict a fundamental premise of Western life, freedom of speech. As summed up by the dictum, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," that freedom assures protection for the right to make mistakes, to insult, to be disagreeable, and to blaspheme.

If the Rushdie Rules initially shocked the West, they since have become the new norm. When Islam is the subject, freedom of speech is but a pre-1989 memory. Writers, artists, and editors readily acknowledge that criticizing Islam can endanger their lives.

Western leaders occasionally stand with those who insult Islam. British prime minister Margaret Thatcher resisted pressure from Tehran in 1989 and stated that "there are no grounds on which the government could consider banning" The Satanic Verses. Other governments reinforced this stalwart position; for example, the U.S. Senate unanimously resolved "to protect the right of any person to write, publish, sell, buy and read books without fear of violence."
Likewise, Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen stood strong in 2006 when disrespectful cartoons of Muhammad in a Copenhagen newspaper led to storms of protest: "This is a matter of principle," he stated. "As prime minister, I have no power whatsoever to limit the press – nor do I want such a power."

Both those incidents led to costly boycotts and violence, yet principle trumped expedience. Other Western leaders have faltered in defense of free expression. The governments of Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Great Britain, Israel, and the Netherlands have all attempted to or succeeded in jailing Rushdie-Rule offenders.

The Obama administration has now joined this ignominious list. Its pressure on Mr. Jones further eroded freedom of speech about Islam and implicitly established Islam's privileged status in the United States, whereby Muslims may insult others but not be insulted. This moved the country toward dhimmitude, a condition whereby non-Muslims acknowledge the superiority of Islam. Finally, Mr. Obama in effect enforced Islamic law, a precedent that could lead to other forms of compulsory Shariah compliance.

Mr. Obama should have followed Mr. Rasmussen's lead and asserted the principle of free speech. His failure to do so means Americans must recognize and resist further U.S. governmental application of the Rushdie Rules or other aspects of Shariah.
Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. His article, "Two Decades of the Rushdie Rules" will appear in the October issue of Commentary magazine.

[iris89]

Muslim Terrorist And Their Families Are Attempting To Use US Courts To Undermine National Security:

Learn the facts, be sure to go to the link and get full details.

WH: lawsuit for cleric would reveal state secrets
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer Pete Yost, Associated Press Writer 11 mins ago [source - retrieved from news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_cleric_lawsuit on 9/25/2010]

WASHINGTON The Obama administration on Saturday invoked the state secrets privilege which would kill a lawsuit on behalf of U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an alleged terrorist said to be targeted for death or capture under a U.S. government program.

Believed to be hiding in Yemen, al-Awlaki has become the most notorious English-speaking advocate of terrorism directed at the United States.
E-mails link al-Awlaki to the Army psychiatrist accused of the killings at Fort Hood, Texas, last year. Al-Awlaki has taken on an increasingly operational role in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, the Justice Department said in a court filing, including preparing Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in his attempt to detonate an explosive device aboard a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.

In its court papers, the Justice Department said that the issues in the case are for the executive branch of government to decide rather than the courts.
The department also said the case entails information that is protected by the military and state secrets privilege.

The courts have sufficient grounds to throw out the lawsuit without resorting to use of the state secrets privilege, the Justice Department said in its filing.

The father has demanded that the government disclose a wide variety of classified information which could harm U.S. national security, Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said in a statement.

"It strains credulity to argue that our laws require the government to disclose to an active, operational terrorist any information about how, when and where we fight terrorism," said Miller.

In a declaration filed in federal court, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he was invoking the military and state secrets privilege on information concerning possible military operations in Yemen, procedures the Defense Department may use in such operations and information concerning Yemen's counterterrorism efforts.

Disclosing information about possible operations would enable targets to evade military action and continue to plot attacks on the U.S., the Gates declaration said.

CIA Director Leon Panetta filed a statement with the court stating that "I am invoking the privilege over any information, if it exists, that would tend to confirm or deny any allegations in the complaint pertaining to the CIA."
Regarding the Christmas bomb attempt, al-Awlaki said in a May 23 interview with the media arm of AQAP that "No one should even ask us about targeting a bunch of Americans who would have been killed in an airplane," James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said in a declaration accompanying the Justice Department papers.

"Our unsettled account with America includes, at the very least, one million women and children. I'm not even talking about the men," Clapper's declaration quotes al-Awlaki as saying.

The lawsuit filed on the cleric's behalf seeks to have a court declare that the Constitution and international law bar the government from carrying out targeted killings; seeks to block the targeted killing of al-Awlaki; and seeks to force the U.S. government to disclose the standards for determining whether U.S. citizens can be targeted for death.

What al-Awlaki's father is seeking would be "unprecedented, improper, and extraordinarily dangerous," said the Justice Department filing, which neither confirmed nor denied the existence of a targeted killings program.
The lawsuit would necessarily and improperly inject the courts into decisions of the president and his advisers about how to protect the American people from the threat of armed attacks, including imminent threats, posed by a foreign organization against which the political branches have authorized the use of necessary and appropriate force, said the Justice Department filing.
If al-Awlaki were to surrender to the proper authorities, legal principles with which the United States has traditionally and uniformly complied would prohibit using lethal force or other violence against him, the department filing added.

[[Obviously the some of the family support wrong doing and try to protect him rather than make him clean up his act and stop doing wrong.]]

[iris89]

Oklahomans Say No to Sharia

by Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
November 16, 2010

www.danielpipes.org/9068/oklahoma-sharia

As Americans learn more about Islam, the aspect they find most objectionable is not its theology (such as whether Allah is God or not) nor its symbolism (such as an Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan) but its law code, called the Sharia. Rightly, they say no to a code that privileges Muslims over non-Muslims, men over women, and contains many elements inimical to modern life.

Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, gave the danger of Sharia unprecedented public attention in July when he blasted its "principles and punishments totally abhorrent to the Western world" and called for a federal law that "says no court anywhere in the United States under any circumstance is allowed to consider Sharia as a replacement for American law."

Despite some stirrings in this direction, no such federal law exists. But legislatures in two states, Tennessee and Louisiana, recently passed laws effectively blocking applications of Sharia that violate existing laws and public policy. And, in a referendum on Nov. 2, the voters in Oklahoma likewise voted 70 to 30 percent to amend their state constitution.

Zuhdi Jasser of AIFD approves.
Although applauded by moderate Muslims such as Zuhdi Jasser, passage of the "Save Our State Amendment" alarmed Islamists. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, accurately accused of aiming "to overthrow constitutional government in the United States," nevertheless convinced a federal district judge to impose a temporary restraining order on the state election board from certifying the amendment.

A full court hearing could helpfully stimulate further public debate over applying the Sharia. In this spirit, let's look more closely at the just-passed Oklahoma amendment, State Question 755. It limits Oklahoma courts to relying exclusively "on federal and state law when deciding cases." Conversely, it rejects "international law" in general and it specifically "forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law," where it defines the latter as Islamic law "based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed."

Popular criticism of the amendment vacillates between two contradictory responses, claiming it's either discriminatory or superfluous.

Discriminatory? While the wording is indeed problematic (international law cannot possibly be banned; and the Sharia should not be singled out by name), State Question 755 correctly insists that judges base their judgments solely on U.S. law. Contrary to rumor, the amendment does not ban Sharia outside the court system: Muslims may wash, pray, eat, drink, play, swim, woo, marry, reproduce, bequeath, etc., according to the tenets of their religion. Thus does the amendment not harm American Muslims.

Muneer Awad of CAIR disapproves.
Superfluous? No research informs us how often American judges rely on the Sharia to reach judgments but a provisional inquiry turns up 17 instances in 11 states. Perhaps most notorious is the New Jersey ruling that concerned a married Muslim couple from Morocco. The wife related that the husband repeatedly forced her to have sex on the grounds that, quoting him, "this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you." In brief, the Muslim husband claimed Sharia sanction for raping his wife.

The trial judge agreed with him: "The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited." Based on that, the judge ruled in June 2009 that no sexual assault had been proven.

An appellate court reversed this ruling in July 2010, on the grounds that the husband's "conduct in engaging in nonconsensual sexual intercourse was unquestionably knowing, regardless of his view that his religion permitted him to act as he did." In Newt Gingrich's more astringent analysis, the trial judge was "unwilling to impose American law on somebody who's clearly abusing somebody."

Then there looms the alarming example of Great Britain, where two of the country's ranking figures, the archbishop of Canterbury and the lord chief justice, have endorsed a role for Sharia alongside British common law, and where a network of Sharia courts already operates.

Neither discriminatory nor superfluous, laws that banish the Sharia are essential to preserving the Constitutional order from what Barack Obama has called the "hateful ideologies of radical Islam." The American Public Policy Alliance has crafted model legislation that Oklahoma's and 47 other state legislatures should pass.

Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

Related Topics: Islamic law (Shari'a), Muslims in the United States This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.