Thread: A textbook case of sharia creep....

Malaysia is usually touted as a model “moderate” Muslim country. Never mind the persecution of Christian converts, the destruction of churches, the demolition of Hindu temples, the state crackdown on cartoons, and yes, the banning of the word “Allah” in a Catholic newspaper ...


Catholic paper can’t use word ‘Allah’
Malaysia (Reuters)
4 January 2008

KUALA LUMPUR - Malaysia has ruled that a Catholic newspaper cannot use the word Allah, clarifying reports it had reversed an earlier ban on the use of the word by non-Muslims.

The move deepens fears the government is trying too hard to please the more extremist sections of its Muslim majority at the expense of other religions.

Father Lawrence Andrew, the editor of Kuala Lumpur-based ‘Herald - the Catholic Weekly’ was reported this week as saying the government had renewed its publishing permit, without restrictions, after earlier ruling that non-Muslims are forbidden from using the word Allah.

But Abdullah Md Zin, a minister for religious affairs, said on Friday the ban on the use of the word remained despite the renewal of the permit. ‘It was just the priest’s interpretation that there was no restriction on the use of the word,’ Abdullah told Reuters.

This is the latest in a series of disputes that is feeding fears of a gradual erosion of the rights of non-Muslims.

Politically dominant ethnic Malay Muslims form about 60 percent of the population of roughly 26 million, while the ethnic Indian and Chinese minorities include Hindus, Buddhists and Christians.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayA...ction=theworld


I have been told by people who travel extensively that Malaysia not only refuses entry to people traveling on an Israeli passport but also that if you have Israel stamped on your passport, airport authorities in Malaysia haul you out of the line and subject you to nasty questions and comments and often you are denied entry into Malaysia. I have no pesonal experience with this, not having traveled to Malaysia, but this has been relayed to me from people who have traveled there.

Keep mind, in every country where Muslims and non-Muslims have lived, the Muslims have driven out or killed enough of the non-Muslims to diminish their numbers. In the early 1950s, Lebanon was 40% Muslim and 60% Christian; while censuses are no longer taken, the proportion is likely reversed.

It will not take long for the blood thirsty islamist to move on the government of Malaysia to create another islamist state like Iran. As for Lebanon, the devils are planning a large march to remove the democracy there but, God willing, the indigenous Christians will resist the Iranian and Syrian based cut-throats.

Keep in mind that Lebanon is the last Christian country in the land where Christianity began.

Banks are helping sharia make a back-door entrance
TAREK FATAH - Special to Globe and Mail Update
January 25, 2008 at 12:36 AM EST

It seems only yesterday that Premier Dalton McGuinty declared: "There will be no sharia law in Ontario." Many of us, who witnessed the medieval nature of manmade sharia laws in our countries of birth, heaved a sigh of relief back in September of 2005. We thought this was the end of the attempt by Islamists to sneak sharia into a Western jurisdiction. We were wrong.

The campaign to introduce sharia is back. Last time, the campaign took a populist approach, invoking multiculturalism. This time, the pro-sharia lobby is dangling the carrot of new niche markets and has the backing of Canada's major banks. Such icons of the corporate world as Citibank NA, HSBC Holdings PLC, and Barclays PLC have endorsed sharia banking and have started offering Islamic financing products to a vulnerable Muslim population.

In May, 2007, The Globe reported that "Several Canadian financial institutions are preparing sharia-compliant mortgages, insurance, taxi licensing and investment funds to help serve the country's fastest-growing part of the population." Recently, the Toronto Star's business section reported that an unnamed bank may offer sharia loans as early as this summer; Le Journal de Montreal disclosed that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation(CMHC) was also getting in on the act. Stephanie Rubec, spokesperson for the CMHC, said the Crown corporation had launched a tender worth $100,000 to study Islamic mortgages for Muslim Canadians. Could she be oblivious to the fact that almost all Muslim Canadians currently have home mortgages through banks and don't feel they are living in sin? In fact, CMHC has gone a step further: It has quietly entered into a partnership with a Saudi company, AaYaan Holdings, to develop sharia-compliant mortgage-lending systems.

The origin of Islamic banking has its roots in the 1920s, but did not start until the late 1970s and owes much of its foundation to the Islamist doctrine of two people — Abul Ala Maudoodi of the Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan and Hassan al-Banna of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The theory was put into practice by Pakistani dictator General Zia-ul-Haq who established sharia banking law in Pakistan.

Proponents of sharia banking rest their case on many verses of the Holy Koran that outlaw usury, not interest.

Verses that address the question of loans and debts include:

Al Baqarah (2:275): God hath permitted trade and forbidden usury;

Al Baqarah (2:276): Allah does not bless usury, and He causes charitable deeds to prosper, and Allah does not love any ungrateful sinner.

Every English-language translation of the Koran has translated the Arabic word riba as usury, not interest. Yet, Islamists have deliberately portrayed bank interest as usury and labelled the current banking system as un-Islamic. Instead, these Islamists have created exotic products with names that are foreign to much of the world's Muslim population. This is where they mask interest under the niqab of Mudraba, Musharaka, Murabaha, and Ijara. Two authors, both senior Muslim bankers, have written scathing critiques of sharia banking, one labelling the practice as nothing more than "deception," with the other suggesting the entire exercise was "a convenient pretext for advancing broad Islamic objectives and for lining the pockets of religious officials." Why Canadian banks would contribute to this masquerade is a question for ordinary Canadians to ask.

Muhammad Saleem is a former president and CEO of Park Avenue Bank in New York. Prior to that, he was a senior banker with Bankers Trust where, among other responsibilities, he headed the Middle East division and served as adviser to a prominent Islamic bank based in Bahrain. In his book, Islamic Banking — A $300 Billion Deception, Mr. Saleem not only dismisses the founding premise of sharia and Islamic banking, he says, "Islamic banks do not practise what they preach: they all charge interest, but disguised in Islamic garb. Thus they engage in deceptive and dishonest banking practises."

Another expert, Timur Kuran, who taught Islamic Thought at the University of Southern California, mocks the very idea. In his book, Islam and Mammon: The Economic Predicaments of Islamism, Prof. Kuran writes that the effort to introduce sharia banking "has promoted the spread of anti-modern currents of thought all across the Islamic world. It has also fostered an environment conducive to Islamist militancy."

Dozens of Islamic scholars and imams now serve on sharia boards of the banking industry. Moreover, a new industry of Islamic banking conferences and forums has emerged, permitting hundreds of sharia scholars to mix and mingle with bankers and economists at financial centres around the globe. In the words of Mr. Saleem, who attended many such meetings, they gather "to hear each other praise each other for all the innovations they are making." He gives examples of how sharia scholars only care for the money they get from banks, willing to rubberstamp any deal where interest is masked.

No sooner had CMHC announced its plans to study sharia-compliant mortgages, than an imam from Montreal's Noor Al Islam mosque offered his services to Canada's banks, claiming Muslims are averse to conventional mortgages because "it goes against their beliefs," a claim that would not withstand the slightest scrutiny.

Other academics who have studied the phenomenon have reached similar conclusions. Two New Zealand business professors, Beng Soon Chong and Ming-Hua Liu of Auckland University, in an October, 2007, study on the growth of Islamic banking in Malaysia, wrote: "Only a negligible portion of Islamic bank financing is strictly 'profit-and-loss sharing' based. … Our study, however, provides new evidence, which shows that, in practice, Islamic deposits are not interest-free." They concluded that the rapid growth in Islamic banking was "largely driven by the Islamic resurgence worldwide."

In the name of Islam, deception and dishonesty is being practised while ordinary Muslims are being made to feel that their interaction with mainstream banks is un-Islamic and sinful. As Mr. Saleem asks, "If Islamic banks label their hamburger a Mecca Burger, as long as it still has the same ingredients as a McDonald's burger, is it really any different in substance?"

Tarek Fatah is the author of Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State, to be published in March.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home

Flashback 2006: Muslim-only banks?
http://www.miamiherald.com/business/...printstory.jsp

A bank that has been offering special services for Muslims for two years has now formed a subsidiary to focus solely on the religious group.

The Ann Arbor-based University Bank has created University Islamic Financial Corp. to offer Muslims home financing, deposit accounts and Islamic mutual fund shares.

“The formation of the subsidiary allows us to have a financial institution which is 100 percent in compliance with the Muslim Shariah, the legal code of the Islamic religion,” bank President and Chairman Stephen Lange Ranzini told The Ann Arbor News for a Saturday story.

Among the laws of Shariah is a ban against paying or receiving interest.

The bank’s Islamic deposit accounts allow Muslims to open accounts where any profits are shared rather than paid as interest.

University Bank also offers a mortgage alternative loan transaction program - or MALT - which replaces a traditional home loan with a redeemable lease.

The bank holds the home in trust, and a home buyer makes monthly payments to that trust. Each rent payment includes a set amount of savings, which builds the buyer’s equity in the home. When the savings account equals the home’s original purchase price, the buyer owns it.

The mortgages are offered across the state, with 57 families in the Detroit area having such loans, and Ranzini said plans are to offer such mortgages nationwide.

Other banks also are targeting Muslims, said Tracey Mills, a spokeswoman for the American Bankers Association trade group.

Flashback 2006: Muslim-only banks?
http://www.miamiherald.com/business/...printstory.jsp

A bank that has been offering special services for Muslims for two years has now formed a subsidiary to focus solely on the religious group.

The Ann Arbor-based University Bank has created University Islamic Financial Corp. to offer Muslims home financing, deposit accounts and Islamic mutual fund shares.

“The formation of the subsidiary allows us to have a financial institution which is 100 percent in compliance with the Muslim Shariah, the legal code of the Islamic religion,” bank President and Chairman Stephen Lange Ranzini told The Ann Arbor News for a Saturday story.

Among the laws of Shariah is a ban against paying or receiving interest.

The bank’s Islamic deposit accounts allow Muslims to open accounts where any profits are shared rather than paid as interest.

University Bank also offers a mortgage alternative loan transaction program - or MALT - which replaces a traditional home loan with a redeemable lease.

The bank holds the home in trust, and a home buyer makes monthly payments to that trust. Each rent payment includes a set amount of savings, which builds the buyer’s equity in the home. When the savings account equals the home’s original purchase price, the buyer owns it.

The mortgages are offered across the state, with 57 families in the Detroit area having such loans, and Ranzini said plans are to offer such mortgages nationwide.

Other banks also are targeting Muslims, said Tracey Mills, a spokeswoman for the American Bankers Association trade group.

Myths & Facts About the Islamic Bank

Over the last month, many friends and readers have sent me links to articles about the University Bank (of Ann Arbor, Michigan) and its new Islamic banking division. Since then, Michael Savage has railed about it on his nationally syndicated radio show. Michelle Malkin and other bloggers have put in on their websites.

I didn't write anything about it because it's actually nothing new, but since I keep getting asked about it and about other commentators' statements about it, I present to you a brief "myths & facts"--setting the record straight about this bank and what should and shouldn't disturb you about it.

First, you must note the reason for the bank: Muslims are forbidden by shariah (Islamic law) from paying interest on loans.

MYTH: University Bank of Ann Arbor is part of the University of Michigan and, therefore, subject to church and state separations. (Michael Savage repeatedly made this claim.)

FACT: University Bank is completely a private-sector bank traded on NASDAQ, which services, among others, many students at the University of Michigan. It has no connection to the University of Michigan, so it is not subject to church and state separations.

--

MYTH: University Bank only allows Muslims to use the Islamic portion of their bank and the shariah-compliant home loans. Michelle Malkin asks (but does not state as fact) whether this is a "Muslim-only bank". (It is a good question.)

FACT: It had better not be a Muslim-only bank, or it will violate federal banking laws prohibiting discrimination in lending. A great test to determine the answer to Michelle's question would be for a non-Muslim to try and get one of these shariah-compliant loans. If the non-Muslim is turned down on any sort of discriminatory ground, I know a great lawyer who would love to take on that lawsuit (me).

The bank does appear to discriminate on the basis of religion in other areas, however. Its employees are ALL Muslims. Will they hire non-Muslims in face-to-face lending positions? I doubt it. If a non-Muslim is turned down for such a position, that is a good ground for a lawsuit. Where are the bank's all-Christian and all-Jewish banking teams? University Bank would be sued big-time if they had these--and the government would shut the bank down.

I'm sure the bank will argue that Muslims won't trust non-Muslims in this specialized shariah-based lending. Tough. Some Whites and Blacks won't trust those of the opposing race, but a bank would have a hard time making that argument and defending its hiring choices in a legal forum and/or government EEO investigation.

Detroit's FOX affiliate showed, in its gushing coverage of the bank, that it has a special prayer room facing Mecca, and allows Muslims to pray five times a day--at work. Do you know of any banks with church or synagogue facilities within, who allow their employees to pray several times during the business day? Will the bank do the same for its non-Muslim employees. Dont' count on it. But, again, these are grounds for a lawsuit.

---

MYTH: University Bank's shariah-compliant bank does not charge interest.

FACT: That's what they claim, but it's phony. Islamic law forbids the payment of interest, but the way this Islamic lending system is set up, it's just a fraud. The bank utilizes a land contract for the Muslim customers to avoid paying interest, and instead, they pay monthly rental payments. The bank is in it to make money. The bank has to charge interest to recoup the investment and make a profit. Therefore, the monthly payments on the mortgage are set up to include interest for the entire period of the payments. They can call it whatever they want, but the customers are still paying interest, regardless of the semantics.

--

MYTH: University Bank's Islamic financial services division is new and the first of its kind in the country to comply with shariah. This has been reported in a number of Mainstream Media publications and media outlets, like Business Week, Forbes, the New York Times, etc., etc., etc.

FACT: Banks all over the country have been offering these shariah-compliant, "interest-free" loans, and your tax dollars are subsidizing them. The most prominent is American Finance House--LARIBA, based in Pasadena, CA. Freddie Mac invested millions in LARIBA contracts.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/517
January 09, 2006

There is a creeping menace in America today: Muslim radicals are using liberal courts and activists, as well as U.S. businesses, to implement Islamic law that runs counter to every freedom our Constitution protects.

Liberals love to ridicule Americans who warn of Islamic infiltration in the U.S. as fear-mongers, xenophobes, bigots, racists or whatever usual epithet pops into their left-wing minds. Whether we are talking about the efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood to make inroad in the United States or the goal of the Islamists to implement Shariah Law in the West, the noise from the Left is always the same: ridicule and marginalize.

Well, this message is aimed straight at the minds of those thinking Americans who can and will make a difference and are willing to stand up for our republic: Islamic radicals want to see Shariah Law as the governing law of the United States and the rest of the West. They will not be satisfied until all of us are under their dictatorial thumb.

This is why you'll read the truth about the goals of the radicals in the pages of Townhall Magazine and not in the liberal media -- or even the pages of other conservative publications that bury their heads in the sand.

And you'll, of course, never hear the truth about it from the Obama administration. In fact, the Obama White House stands with those who criticize Americans worried about Shariah Law. In 2009, Dalia Mogahed, an Obama administration advisor on Muslim affairs, told a British television audience that the West misunderstands Shariah, calling its perceptions of Islamic tenants "oversimplified."

Our April cover story, "The Shariah Threat," exposes the efforts of Islamists to impose Shariah Law, including their use of U.S. courts, politicians, media and businesses.

Why is Islam sacred in the U.S. while other religions are frequently lampooned in cartoons and ridiculed in "art"? Are we, indeed, as some experts believe, already embracing de facto Shariah Law?

Janet Levy, a prolific writer on Islam and national security, says: "Our uniquely American virtues of tolerance and freedom have worked against us to produce intolerance and oppression. This has led to the stealthy introduction of Shariah Law and a climate in which criticisms of Mohammed and Islam are no longer possible without serious repercussions."

Are political correctness and moves to cool the osmosis of the American melting pot fundamentally changing us? Is the arena of ideas -- where Americans have historically tested competing beliefs -- being shut down so as not to offend?

Unless we read their plan and act to implement it, Obama will raise taxes, end the mortgage interest and charitable deduction, raise Social Security taxes, and add trillions more to the federal deficit in the process. Conservatives need to fight back - and Morris and McGann explain how to do it. For all the changes coming in Washington, the Tea Party revolution's most important changes will be at the state level.

So what does this all mean for Shariah in America? Find out more in the April issue exclusive report on the looming threat of Shariah Law.

Also in the April issue …




If the world wants to see what liberalism does to people, it needs look no further than Oakland, Calif. Our in-depth feature "Disaster by the Bay" explains how liberal progressive politicians and policies have destroyed the black community and family -- and nowhere is this more evident than in Oakland. The damage done has devastated the once-great city.

You do not want to miss the powerful April issue of Townhall Magazine http://www.townhallmail.com/nfwhqbzt...mblkljmlb.html

Sharia Compliance in Dearborn, Mich.
on April 25, 2011 10:40:57 Cal Thomas

The RINO (reverend in name only) Terry Jones is like his fellow RINO, Fred Phelps, but in political drag.

Jones, the “pastor” (PINO?) of the tiny and inconsequential Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., was jailed last week in Dearborn, Mich., “following a jury trial that found he was likely to create a ‘breach of the peace’ for plans to protest outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn,” according to the Detroit News. Jones and his associate Wayne Sapp were taken into custody after they refused to post a $1 “peace bond.” A judge then barred Jones and Sapp from entering the property of the Islamic Center — the largest mosque in the U.S. — for three years. The two posted bond and were released, but they promised to return on Friday.

Last month, Jones burned a Koran, which led to demonstrations and deaths in the Middle East.

Let’s get the obligatory and obvious out of the way before moving to the central issue in this case. Jones is a publicity hound and an offense to the One he claims to follow.

Having said that, what about Jones’ First Amendment rights? In 1977, the Illinois Supreme Court, after instruction from the U.S. Supreme Court, allowed the National Socialist Party of America to march through Skokie, Ill., home of many Holocaust survivors. The Illinois Supreme Court even ruled that the hated swastika was a form of free speech and thus entitled to First Amendment protection. So, though neo-Nazi’s marching through a predominantly Jewish town wearing swastikas might be considered offensive, the court ruled, it was not illegal.

In the case of Fred Phelps and his family, all members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., who carry outrageous “Thank God for dead soldiers” signs and claim America is being punished because of its growing tolerance for homosexuals, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 8-1 majority: “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.”

Speech with which one agrees is easy to defend. Most would defend political speech with which they disagree, although a minority would censor it. The strength and uniqueness of the First Amendment is that it defends even hate speech. The response to speech we don’t like is not less speech, but more. In Skokie, some Holocaust survivors created a museum to commemorate those who were murdered by the Nazis. That’s the correct reaction. Overcome darkness with light. Overcome speech you don’t like with speech you do like.

In the Jones case, what are the Dearborn authorities thinking? Isn’t Islam a “religion of peace”? President Obama — and George W. Bush before him — has said it is. If lawful speech and assembly brings an unlawful act of violence, shouldn’t the lawbreakers be the ones punished?

This is America and public sidewalks should be for the use of the public to practice even offensive speech and peaceful assembly. That some “fear” violence is no excuse for prior restraint of speech and assembly. From whom is the violence feared?

What the Muslims in Dearborn and elsewhere in the country should be told is that in America, we do things differently than in countries where Muslims have political control. If you want to be tolerated, you have to tolerate others, including those whose beliefs you don’t like. We don’t conform to your religious laws; you conform to our secular laws. We are about freedom.

If you have an agenda, don’t bring it here. In fact, if our ways are so offensive to you, why are you here? Why come to a land regarded by some Islamic leaders, and many followers, as “the Great Satan”? Why not stay in your home country, or, if you were born in America and embrace Islam, why not live in countries where Islam is the dominant religion? Or do you wish to dominate and subjugate the rest of us to your Sharia law?

If that is your goal, we will oppose you and even demonstrate against it. Except, apparently, in Dearborn, Mich.

http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=3239

Oklahoma can't enforce Sharia law ban
By Robert Boczkiewicz | Reuters – 20 hrs ago

DENVER (Reuters) - A federal appeals court upheld an injunction against a voter-approved ban on Islamic law in Oklahoma on Tuesday, saying it likely violated the U.S. Constitution by discriminating against religion.

A three-member panel of the Denver-based U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the rights of plaintiff Muneer Awad, a Muslim man living in Oklahoma City, likely would be violated if the ban on Sharia law takes effect.

The decision upholds the ruling of a lower federal court. "While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out ... the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual's constitutional rights," the appeals court said in a 37-page written decision.

The Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations welcomed the ruling, calling it "a victory for the Constitution and for the right of all Americans to freely practice their faith."

Oklahoma's "Save Our State Amendment," which was approved by 70 percent of state voters in 2010, bars Oklahoma state courts from considering or using Sharia law.

The lawsuit challenging the measure was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Awad, who is director of the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR.

A federal judge in Oklahoma City issued a court order in November 2010 barring the measure from taking effect while the case is under review, finding a substantial likelihood that Awad would prevail on the merits.

The Council said the Oklahoma amendment is among 20 similar proposed laws introduced in state legislatures nationwide.

Defenders of the amendment say they want to prevent foreign laws in general, and Islamic Sharia law in particular, from overriding state or U.S. laws.

But foes of the Oklahoma measure, also called State Question 755, have argued that it stigmatizes Islam and its adherents and violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment prohibition against the government favoring one religion over another.

State Senator Anthony Sykes, one of the measure's sponsors, called the decision an attempt "to silence the voice of 70 percent of Oklahoma voters. At some point we have to decide whether this is a country of, by and for the judges, or of, by and for the people."

Opponents also say it could nullify wills or legal contracts between Muslims because they incorporate by reference specific elements of Islamic prophetic traditions.

http://news.yahoo.com/court-oklahoma...011240179.html


comments

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND - Not even Sharia "law" supercedes The Constitution

...

A state court is already barred from considering or using sharia law because the use of sharia violates the seperation of cult and state.

...

Sharia Law is a religious doctrine in practice and principle. Does this, too, mean that Baptist doctrine should carry the weight of US law? Catholic? Jewish? Do we really want to start down this road where groups and religions can inforce their own rules with the full backing and support of the government, or should we defer to the principle of separation and make rights equal under the law? I believe the court has erred here.

...

does this mean that Warren Jeffs was illegaly denied his constutional rights when arrested and imprisioned for having more than one wife and child brides acording to his beliefs-that are very similar to sharia law.

...

If he wants his own laws so badly, stay the hell in your own country. One set of rules for everyone.

...

It is unacceptable for Americans to move to other countries and not follow every rule to the T, yet they can come here, claim that our laws oppress them and we give in....

....

So we can't prohibit this guy from practicing Sharia Law? Then when he beats the crap out of his wife you can't charge him with domestic violence because that is acceptable under their law. Sharia Law makes it legal to stone people or kill someone for adultery. Makes no sense. Each day our great country is going further and further down the toilet. Our own people are letting it happen. Sad.

....

It's a ban on Sharia Law, not the Islamic religion. We as a state or country have our own laws that we live by, now they're trying to erode those away to replace them with their own brand of what's right and acceptable. Islam. Stop this now or live (or die) under it soon....your choice.

...

Im sorry I thought when people came to America it was to be American and follow OUR rules and Regulations-NOT that of the country they felt Oppressed enough to leave-IN AMERICA IT IS AMERICAN RULES, LAWS ETC. PERIOD!!!!

...

It is funny, when it comes to the Islamic religion, we cannot stop anything from happening as it violates a Religious act. When it comes to Christianity, we cannot practice it as we please (Merry Christmas, God Bless you) because it upsets others and create a Religious act! Our Government and our courts are destroying our real freedoms. So --- God Bless America!!!

Stop Muslim Sharia and Foreign Law from enforcement in American courts by activist judges. Pass H.R. 973 and protect our Constitution.

Judge: "Christians can't eat pork," enforces Muslim Sharia law upon all Ohio Prisoners

In yet another example of the Judicial Islamicization of America, a U.S. federal judge in Ohio has enforced "Sharia" Muslim law forbidding Christian prisoners from eating pork in prison.

To accommodate Muslim comlainers, an Ohio Prison Director Gary C. Mohr banned pork from all kitchen in all prisons under control of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. The Muslims had threatened a lawsuit to demand "halal" meals and kitchens, so ODRC entirely removed pork and forced all Christian prisoners to eat Muslim food.

One brave Christian prisoner, James Rivers, filed a lawsuit opposing the enforcement of Muslim "Sharia" law upon all the prisoners, and demanded his right to eat pork. "Plaintiff asserts that this...violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, subjects him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eight Amendment, denies him substantive and procedural due process, and denies him Equal Protection," reads the complaint.

Sadly, the federal judge James S. Guin threw out the case, ruled against all Christian prisoners, and enforced Sharia Muslim dietary law in all Ohio prisons. "While the removal of pork from prison meals may benefit Muslim as well as Jewish inmates, it also creates a meal that can be eaten by all inmates regardless of faith," wrote the Judge.

"[Nor would] a reasonable person … conclude that the menu change endorsed the Muslim faith. The choice is neutral to religion. Several faiths prohibit the consumption of pork..."

"Plaintiff has not alleged any facts or cited any law which suggest he has a constitutionally protected interest in eating pork as part of his prison diet..."

"Plaintiff's substantive due process claim is based on conduct alleged to be so severe that it shocks the conscience...To the contrary, Plaintiff objects to being treated the same as all other inmates. He does not allege he was denied pork while all other inmates were served this dish. Instead, he complains that all inmates are treated the same, regardless of whether they have a religious dietary restriction of this nature."

[DR. CHAPS COMMENT: In other words, because the prison enforces Muslim Sharia law equally upon all prisoners, none of them face discrimination--they are all treated as Muslims equally, and forced to eat Muslim food equally, so Christians have no dietary rights.]

Folks, foreign Muslim Sharia law is being enforced in American courts, violating the U.S. Constitution, and establishing Islam as the mandatory religion upon Christians.

Florida Judge enforces Sharia Law over U.S. Constitution. Legislators allow it.

The Florida State legislature has failed to pass S.B. 1360, a law preventing Muslim Sharia Law from being enforced by liberal judges, especially one who hates the U.S. Constitution.

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

"The proposed law, SB 1360, had been opposed jointly and lobbied against by both CAIR (The Council on American Islamic Relations) and the ADL (the mostly Jewish Anti-Defamation League) ... American citizens must be allowed to question, without being called 'Islamophobes' or 'bigots,' the inherent threat of Islamic sharia ideology, disguised as only religious law, before it endangers our American society. The political correctness of this constitutional argument actually blinds one to the dangers of some Islamic laws...specifically those that pertain to women and children and the punishments rendered for breaking these laws...

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

"Caning and flogging in public are done in cases where a female is found guilty of a minor sexual infraction, and stoning to death for a wife's adultery is common in the Muslim world. Amputation of a hand or foot is considered an appropriate price for thievery, while beheading, crucifying, and hanging are the recommended penalties for murder or blasphemy. Children can also be harshly treated under sharia law by being forced to remain in the custody of an abusive father after there is a divorce.

"Killing in the name of 'family honor' is an accepted form of Islamic punishment for a woman's unfaithfulness or a Muslim child straying too far from the Islamic way..."

You can read the full article here. http://news.dienerconsultants.com/ct...A955CC0B487B:r


Muslim Judge in U.S. court: OK to choke people who mock Muhammad.

Meanwhile another American Judge Mark Martin, a Muslim, just ruled to enforce Sharia law instead of the U.S. Constitution in a shocking case in Pennsylvania. Get this:

An atheist joker Ernest Perce dressed for a Holloween parade as the Muslim false prophet Muhammed. While walking in the parade the atheist joker was jumped and beaten by an easily offended Muslim man, Talaag Elbayomy. A video camera and eyewitness policeman captured the assault and testified for the atheist victim, who was physically beaten by the Muslim attacker, right here in the USA.

The Muslim attacker was an immigrant who claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. He also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

But the U.S. judge was Muslim, so he threw out the video evidence, dismissed the eyewitness cop, lectured the victim for mocking Muhammed, and freed the violent Muslim attacker.

Watch the 2 minute ABC News story here-->(and share it widely). http://news.dienerconsultants.com/ct...A955CC0B487B:r

The U.S. Judge said to the atheist: "I'm a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you're way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries...In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society."

Let me get this straight. An American Judge enforces foreign Sharia law rather than the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? And this is happening in America?

This is why Congress must pass H.R. 973, to stop Activist Judges from enforcing Sharia Muslim law rather than the U.S. Constitution and First Amendment. Let's take action.

Congresswoman: Stop judges who promote Sharia and Foreign Law over Constitution.

Conservative Congresswoman Sandy Adams (R-FL) has taken a stand for liberty and to defend the U.S. Constitution and US law, by sponsoring a bill that stops liberal activist judges from enforcing Muslim Sharia law, or foreign laws, in American Courts.

Adams wrote an op-ed article explaining her bill, saying in part: http://news.dienerconsultants.com/ct...A955CC0B487B:r

"Imagine waking up one Sunday morning and reading the headline in your local newspaper: 'Supreme Court rules that the press can't question the president,' and imagine that their ruling cited international case law from nations like China or Cuba, where it is illegal to question the word of the executive branch. While this idea may seem far-fetched, it is a daunting possibility.

"Foreign law poses a very real threat to the American judicial system...Our Constitution laid the foundation for our nation's judicial system, and referencing or using foreign law in American courts will lead to its erosion...

"That is why I have introduced legislation to protect our Constitution and federal court systems from this type of practice. My two-page bill, H.R. 973, simply states that 'in any court created by or under Article III of the Constitution of the United States, no justice, judge, or other judicial official shall decide any issue in a case before that court in whole or in part on the authority of foreign law, except to the extent the Constitution or an Act of Congress requires the consideration of that foreign law.'

"Not only is using international precedent a transparent disregard for the Constitution, but it could be used to advance a judge's personal political agenda over the best interests of the nation. Judges have a responsibility to interpret the laws of the land, not legislate from the bench, and the practice of referring to foreign law puts their underlying motives into question. There are three particular Supreme Court cases where judges have cited foreign and international precedent: Lawrence v. Texas, where the court overturned state anti-sod omy statutes; Atkins v. Virginia, where the court held against the execution of mentally retarded capital defendants; and Roper v. Simmons, where the court outlawed application of the death penalty to offenders who were under 18 when their crimes were committed. International and foreign laws were cited in all three cases by our Supreme Court justices in reaching their decisions, setting precedent for future rulings..."

Adams continued: "Currently there are over a dozen states that have introduced legislation banning foreign law on the state level - including the state I represent, Florida...[it has] become a fixture of the confirmation process for Supreme Court justices. In her 2010 confirmation hearing, Elena Kagan was questioned by Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican, who asked if she thought international law should factor into a federal court's decision-making process. She confirmed that she did, stating: 'I think it depends. There are some cases in which the citation of foreign law, or international law, might be appropriate.'

"This kind of practice begs the question: Are we going to allow our court systems to dictate our policymaking process based off of foreign sources or are we going to go through the proper channels prescribed by our Constitution? We must remember that we have an American judicial system in place for a reason; it is based off of our country's rich history and it is intentionally unique to our great nation. As we move forward as a country, we must work to protect it."

--Rep. Sandy Adams represents Florida's 24th Congressional District.

The Muslim attacker was an immigrant who claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. He also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

I thought ignorance of law was no defense????

Joys of Muslim Women
By Nonie Darwish

In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child; consummating the marriage by 9. The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy. Even though a woman is abused she can not obtain a divorce.

To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses. Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and he does not have to say why he has beaten her. The husband is permitted to have (4 wives) and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.

The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.

In the West World (America and Britain) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities and British Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.

By passing this on, enlightened American and British women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law.

Ripping the West in Two.

Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shariah law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two. She recently authored the book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law. Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before immigrating to America in 1978, when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel . He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza .

When he died, he was considered a "shahid," a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society.
But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing.. She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television.

In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping shariah law - what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries. For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose sharia on the world. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed. Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual. Islamic law (Sharia) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world.

Peace and prosperity for one's children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East and eventually in the world.

While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Shariah teaches two systems of ethics - one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Shariah encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others.

While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with God, Shariah advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism. It's hard to imagine, that in this day and age, Islamic scholars agree that those who criticize Islam or choose to stop being Muslim should be executed. Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West, such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation.

While Westerners are accustomed to an increase in religious tolerance over time, Darwish explains how petro dollars are being used to grow an extremely intolerant form of political Islam in her native Egypt and elsewhere. (In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. and Britain to elect the President and Prime Minister by themselves! Rest assured they will do so... You can look at how they have taken over several towns in the US... Dearborn Mich. is one... and there are others... Britain has several cities now totally controlled by Muslims.)

I think everyone in the U.S. and Great Britain should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!

It is too bad that so many are disillusioned with life and Christianity to accept Muslims as peaceful. Some may be but they have an army that is willing to shed blood in the name of Islam. The peaceful support the warriors with their finances and own kind of patriotism to their religion. While America and Britain are getting rid of Christianity from all public sites and erasing God from the lives of children, the Muslims are planning a great jihad on America and Britain.