Sharia Law In America

Sharia Law punishment for adultery
Sharia Law punishment for adultery

As someone who stays away from forming hard opinions on matters outside my complete understanding, I've spent relatively little time absorbed by issues I don't consider as impacting my everyday life. I've also become rather non-political, preferring not to get myself worked up over issues I don't feel I have the time or energy to pursue. That may sound very un-American, but be that as it may, it's the truth.

Now, with so much global unrest, so many economical pressures, and so many seeming threats directed at obliterating what has always been the American way of life, I find myself coming out of my self-imposed isolation and wondering how we got to such a bad place. The “American Way Of Life” as I remember it, doesn't even look like a third cousin twice removed when compared to what is fast becoming a “Way Of Survival”. It's more like a red headed step-child, brought on by our penchant for downplaying outrageous acts and aggressions against our intrinsic human rights by those who would see us conquered, all in the interest of coming off as peaceful and accommodating.

I received an invitation via my Facebook account, to take up the cause to stop Shariah Law from becoming the law of the land here in the United States. I was confused about why anyone would believe that such a thing could happen in our country. What I knew about Shariah Law was very limited, so in my ignorance, I assumed that since it was a collection of laws pertaining to doctrines of a religion, it couldn't possibly usurp the place of our legal system. Our judicial system has been very firm about keeping church and state matters separate. Right?

Wrong! The truth of what is happening in our country is difficult to grasp as the actions against all things non-Islamic have slowly, in minuscule advances, made themselves a part of our culture. There have been court cases with plaintiffs and defendants siting Shariah Law as far back as the 1970s. Though the question of Shariah has been brought up, those cases invariably arrived at verdicts based solely on governing domestic laws.

A 1976 case, in the state of New York, found that a father who arranged and carried out the marriage of his thirteen year old daughter to a seventeen year old boy of his choosing, was in violation of endangering the welfare of a minor.

In 1992, the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit decided against Sofyan Ali Saleh in favor of the US Department of Justice. Saleh, a Yemeni who was jailed for murder of another Yemeni national, fought deportation on Shariah grounds. He claimed he would be killed under Shariah Law for the same offense that he had already done jail time in the US. Saleh contended a qualification for asylum because he had established a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, etc. He was denied due to the fact that his conviction in Yemen didn't constitute persecution because he had simply been prosecuted for a common law offense.

Though relatively few, cases continued to come before our courts, only to be judged and decisions arrived upon through our own domestic laws. However, a noticeable gravitation towards consideration of Shariah Law in Civil cases has been gaining momentum since about 2007 or thereabouts.

A Muslim couple, citizens of India who were living in Michigan, separated in January 2008 after a seven year marriage. In an effort to circumvent customs regarding division of property and child custody, the husband traveled to India where he pronounced the triple talaq against his wife three months later. The talaq is a mechanism for divorce which only requires the husband to renounce his marriage three times in order for the divorce to be valid under Sunni Islam.

When the wife filed a complaint for divorce, he filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because of the Indian divorce. The court granted his motion and instructed the wife to register the Indian divorce in Michigan. She was also instructed to file a separate complaint for custody and child support. A court of appeals reversed the decision as void and against public policy since it violates due process and equal protection.

One of the most disturbing cases is that of Moroccan Muslim citizens who were wed in an arranged marriage a month before arriving in New Jersey as a result of the husband's job. Despite a continued pattern of abuse and the repeated rape of the wife, the trial judge refused to issue a final restraining order. Though the judge recognized that the husband had engaged in sexual relations against his wife's expressed wishes, he did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven. Why? Because he said he believed the defendant didn't have a criminal desire or intent to sexually assault the plaintiff. The judge felt that the defendant was operating under his belief that as a husband it was his right, and that it was consistent with his practices and was something not prohibited.

The appeals court overturned the ruling, finding fault with the judge for excusing the Defendant's actions due to his religious beliefs, and remanded for entry of a restraining order. The dates of the abuse covered a three month span from November 2008 through January 2009. The appellate court didn't review it until March 24, 2010 and a decision wasn't rendered until July 23, 2010.

Domestic violence of such severity of nature could very well have culminated in the plaintiff's death since she remained unprotected for almost a year and a half. After reading the case from start to finish, even I can see the obvious neglect on the part of the judge to honor the outlines of the mandated laws governing domestic abuse and rape in the state of New Jersey.

The 2009 beheading of a Muslim woman who had filed for divorce barely made the headlines. Last February, Muzzammil Hassan was charged with 2nd degree murder. He was the founder of BridgesTV, a cable network he claims was designed to help non-Muslims overcome any negative ideas and feelings they may harbor toward Muslims and Islam.

The morning the story broke, there was no major media coverage of a story that ten years ago would have brought a public outcry so loud that the defendant would have had to be placed in protective custody. A Canadian columnist compared the seemingly low lack of interest in Mrs. Hassan's murder to the massive media attention her murderer garnered with his launching of BridgesTV, Ironically, his TV network to counter negative stereotypes of Muslims seems to be in serious conflict with his barbarian act against his estranged wife. Newsday buried the story on page 26 while the New York Post posed the idea that money woes spurred the beheading, as if beheading is a natural conclusion to economic stresses. The real slap in the face came with the Buffalo News featuring a front page story hailing the opening of a new Moslem Mosque in the city only a few days after the murder.

While increasing instances of Shariah Law creeping into the lower courts are enough to raise any red-blooded American's ire, the cost of the appeals is going to continue to climb. We, the taxpayers will inevitably be faced with still more demands on our meager financial reserves. There is no room for Shariah Law in our society, nor is there any right for Muslims to believe their religious laws should carry any weight in civil and/or criminal proceedings. Our allowance of such laws to be entered into the realm of evidence and mitigating circumstance is ludicrous and needs to be put to an immediate end.

The biggest question arising when discussion regarding the insidious intrusion of Sharia Law into our secular laws is: How did it manage to gain even a foothold when the tenets of the Laws are the extreme opposite of the very foundations on which our nation was built?

Our insistence on being politically correct has led us down the merry path extreme Islamists have always intended, that of becoming a country divided on how we should be treating Muslims and their religion. The very old method of divide and conquer is alive and well in the United States. Older generations, a bit more seasoned in the under dealings in the political arena, who also have long memories of the deeds aligned with extreme belief systems by fanatics like Hitler, have become separated by a wide divide from the younger generation who wishes to believe that during this enlightened time in history, large religious regimes are peace loving and deserving of our acceptance and accommodations.

Abdurahman Alamoudi is a self-proclaimed moderate Muslim who has been described by an FBI insider as an “expert in the art of deception.” Among his many appointments to various Boards and Councils associated with perpetuation and expansion of the Muslim faith, Alamoudi served as an Islamic Affairs advisor for the Clinton administration, a Pentagon appointee in charge of choosing Muslim chaplains for the U.S. Military, and a State Department “goodwill ambassador” to the Muslim nations, all the while touting himself as a moderate.

His deeds and activities would say otherwise. He has openly defended Musa Abu Marzook, deported for his Hamas related activities. He has openly defended Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind shiekh imprisoned for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In 2000, he attended an anti-Israel protest outside the White House where he lamented that his being labeled as a supporter of Hamas hadn't included supporter of Hezbollah, as well.

The year 2000 was a bumper year for Alamoudi's activities. He began making regular illegal trips to Libya, meeting with government officials for the purpose of causing problems for Saudi Arabia. Later he admitted to his involvement in the scheme to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah for the Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi. In January of the following year, just ten months prior to 9/11, he attended a conference in Beirut along with numerous leaders of terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda.

Two years after the 9/11 attacks, he was arrested in Washington, DC for illegally failing to notify the U.S. State department of his many trips to Libya. This took place during the same month British customs officials discovered $340,000 cash in his luggage; money that had originated in Libya and was meant to be distributed in Syria where Hamas and Islamic Jihad make their presence felt.

burned with acid as a punishment
burned with acid as a punishment | Source

Mufid Abdulqader is the younger half-brother of Hamas' top political leader, Khaled Mashal. Abdulqader immigrated to the United States in 1980, enrolling in the Oklahoma State University where he earned a master's degree in Engineering. Within eight years of his arrival, he had married an Oklahoma native, with whom he fathered three daughters, and gained employment as an engineer for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation.

Beyond his activities as a husband, father, and employee, he sang in a band called Al Sakhra, which toured the U.S performing at Hama's functions and fundraisers. Lyrics contained in his songs leave little doubt about his stand on taking the terrorist approach toward topics covering extreme Muslim beliefs regarding Jews and all who help or aid them in some way, with many calling for Jihad, while glorifying their deaths in the cause. During performances, a collection basket was passed around through the crowd, eliciting thousands of dollars from American Muslim's for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HFL) which was then filtered down to Hamas organizations.

None of this was illegal in the United States until President Clinton designated Hamas as a terrorist organization in 1995. In 1996, Abdulqader's continued perfomances were no less inflammatory. During that same year he became a civil engineer for the city of Dallas. Three years later, he was charged with six others for their activities associated with the HFL. According to an arrest warrant affidavit, HLF considered Abdulqader to be one of the outfits top fundraisers.

From Fawaz Abu Damra to Mumia Abu Jamal to Hatem Abudeyyeh to Aminah Akbar, we have invited extremist Muslims to be a part of our community, to feel justified in espousing their brand of peace and solidarity to the young and impressionable minds of our children as well as the trusting and unsuspecting working class. We have willingly helped them in their masquerades as peace loving “moderates” who wish for nothing other than to co-exist with all peoples across the world. We have become so concerned with honoring political correctness, that we are virtually giving away control of our own country.

Anxious to curb the anger and re-establish a sense of peace in our country, we've been very quick to embrace the idea that most Muslims are moderate, that fanatics can be found in all formal religions, and that the war in Iraq would send a message to those who believe they can destroy the American spirit. We faithfully believed and continue to believe that terrorists associated with fanatical Muslim sects and militant groups, have been consistently and systematically removed from inside our borders. The truth is that the most dangerous of the activists are those we embrace and espouse for their efforts toward humanity.

While our military is away fighting the war we have called, a war on terrorism, those who advocate the hatred of Christians and the killing of Jews are permitted to continue their campaigns of hate and prejudice, on the very ground our soldiers are giving their lives to protect. Many of these campaigners are Islamic religious leaders of their communities. Some have gone so far as to call for Jihad.

We want to believe we are compassionate and fair to all peoples with tolerance toward others outside of our own religious preferences so passionately, that we have failed to educate ourselves in regards to the ramifications for this particular belief system. While it's true that the Koran and the Christian Bible both teach about adherence to worship of one true God/Allah, and the compassionate treatment of one's fellow man, there are some grave differences. The most recognized difference is that followers carry the belief their mission, in Allah's name, is to obliterate all other religions from the face of the earth by whatever means is necessary, so anyone who is a non-believer is subject to being killed. To be killed as an infidel isn't the same as being murdered. Such killings are considered reason for jubilation.

Most people know that Sharia Law is the collection of laws which govern the followers of Islam. What they don't know is that Sharia Law did not come into existence until around the 8th century when scholars made efforts at devising a unified method for setting rules of conduct to be followed by all Muslims. Perhaps this explains why the punishments and sexist practices seem so barbaric to non-Muslims.

The continued spread of Sharia Law in the United States poses a threat to all society. Our constitution is being cheapened by the continued attempts to manipulate the ideals on which it is founded. Extremist Muslims demanding our inclusion of Sharia Law have one goal only, and that is to establish an Islamic Caliphate around the world.

If this issue is very important to you, please pass the information on by clicking the Tweet, Like, or +1 buttons provided on this page. We can make a difference one click at a time!

More by this Author

  • The Roots of Agent Orange

    This is the second in a series of articles detailing the discovery, the military use, the legal battles faced by victims, and the massive ongoing cover-up of the deadly chemical manufactured by Monsanto, Agent Orange. ...

  • Fluoride by Any Other Name

    The companion piece to Fluoride: America's Drug of choice, this article goes into depth about the people whose research has exposed the lies behind fluoridation. Read the stories of the early researchers whose initial...

  • Commercial Ice Cream Ingredients Will Make YOU Scream!

    If you love ice cream, you may be shocked to learn what goes into the commercially made product. Chemicals used as paint solvents, in printing inks and antifreeze, as well as soaps and detergents. Here's a list of...

Comments 15 comments

Pierre Savoie profile image

Pierre Savoie 5 years ago from Canada

The problem is we have gone so crazy for "human rights" and "multiculturalism" that members of backward civilizations waltz into our Western countries and are granted an equal say. We need to balance human rights nonsense with Civilizational Rights: the right to preserve our advances and not be compromised or vetoed by the representatives of ideas we ourselves abandoned hundreds of years ago. We never had to worry about that before because our "bigotry" insulated us from the bad ideas of other cultures. I say we should still, by and large, not listen to the schemes of outsiders, but it will be a more tolerant, engaged dialogue before we point out to them that democracy, rights for women, tolerance and religious freedom are, in the words of Bill Maher, "not negotiable."

Terri Meredith profile image

Terri Meredith 5 years ago from Pennsylvania Author

I agree. Given that we also have the right and the duty to protect ourselves and our way of life, I feel that we also have a right to monitor closely those who fit the description of what our enemies appear to be. I'm not suggesting that we should hate, ostracize, or harrass people of the Muslim faith. I'm merely suggesting that we need to disallow all behaviors which call for violence of any type. I also believe that regardless of who the culprit might be, visas and citizenship should be revoked if not a natural born citizen. Natural born's should be subjected to the law as any other citizen would be regardless of religion. We simply can not allow double standards on these issues out of a misguided sense of "Constitutional etiquette."

profile image

T-Rants 5 years ago

Too right mate, I totally agree! Very well put!

Terri Meredith profile image

Terri Meredith 5 years ago from Pennsylvania Author

Thanks for taking the time to comment. I get really worked up about these issues. My family's been in this country since it was still 13 colonies. They helped settle Pennsylvania, dealing with the Indian Wars, the illness, and hardships... One of my grandfathers fought with Washington. I can only imagine how they must be turning in their graves.

mslizzee profile image

mslizzee 5 years ago from Buncombe County, NC

This is a wonderful hub. I have been advocating for Muslim women for a very long time. I'm so concerned about the appointment of Muslim judges ( such as recently happened in New Jersey by Christie) and also the election of Muslim congressment, such as Representative Ellison. These men believe in Sharia Law and have by stealth worked their ways into our government. It can not be good. This AM I wrote about yet another honor killing in Michigan. That state with its heavy Muslim population is indicative of what is to come if more folks don't wake up, stop calling Islam the religion of Peace and stop their creep into our country.

Terri Meredith profile image

Terri Meredith 5 years ago from Pennsylvania Author

Thanks for stopping and commenting. I'm in agreement with you. I popped over to your hub and left my comments there, so I won't reiterate here. I hope all who read these articles, keep the information in mind when it's time for them to vote or take action of any other kind. Protecting our country's laws and freedoms is the responsibility of EVERY citizen. There is no room for those who claim they're too busy and don't have time. They need to make time since and not rely on a few to do the work. A few will only create a nuisance, whereas a the voices of many will create a noise so great as to be impossible to shut out!

Ms Dee profile image

Ms Dee 5 years ago from Texas, USA

Thanks for this hub! I'm so concerned about the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into our federal government and the push for Sharia in our state courts.

Terri Meredith profile image

Terri Meredith 5 years ago from Pennsylvania Author

You're quite welcome. I have a very real problem with anyone coming into our country and believing we should be the ones to adapt to their ways. This country was established on documented constitutional rights. Too many people are confused about just what freedom of religion contends. It simply means we are free to practice our religion free from persecution. However, there are very definite guidelines about no personal pursuit of happiness (that would encompass religious practices) being permitted if it brings about harm or interference with another's right to enjoy their freedoms. In other words, even freedom of religion has it's limitations. Attempting to incorporate religious doctrine into our governing laws can not be permitted as it clearly violates the separation of church and state.

Ms Dee profile image

Ms Dee 5 years ago from Texas, USA

Yes, well put. So true! Everything has its limits.

ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 5 years ago from Southern California


It is shameful that your work on this hub had so few comments.

I have seen other hubs with no real content value get lots of comments.

It says something about the viewers of hubs, and it is not a good thing.

Our laws are bad enough, we don't need to make them even worse.

Good hub rated up

Terri Meredith profile image

Terri Meredith 5 years ago from Pennsylvania Author

Hi ib radmasters! I'm glad you stopped by. I don't get too offended by readers who don't comment. I figure if they don't have anything of value to say, I'd rather not have them make a comment just for the sake of commenting. Also, sometimes people read comments others have left and find that it's the same idea as they were going to express. Some of my articles have many comments, some have only a few. I'm fine as long as I am getting the views.

Becky Bruce profile image

Becky Bruce 4 years ago from San Diego, CA

So interesting Terri! And so much to think about. Thanks for that wonderfully researched hub :)

Terri Meredith profile image

Terri Meredith 4 years ago from Pennsylvania Author

Hi Becky, When I first wrote the article, I was concerned that it sounded like I was against ALL Muslims or any of them immigrating when that's not really the case. However, I've worked with many people from other countries, most of them Egyptians, and I learned a lot about their culture. Even those no one would deem fanatical Muslims by any means, the fact remains that they have a very different culture which does not include any freedom for their women, and is geared toward punishment when women step beyond the boundaries set by husbands. In addition, I've worked with a few that were truly against Americans. It was so infuriating that they came to this country to take advantage of the economics, but then spit on the people. This clown was stupid enough to physically grab a hold of me because I dared to "talk back" and disagree with him about some inconsequential matter. I darned near shoved his head in a soup pot. (He steered clear of me thereafter) Point's very difficult to recognize those types until they are provoked. I'd worked with him for months before his true colors began to emerge.

Becky Bruce profile image

Becky Bruce 4 years ago from San Diego, CA

fascinating Terri! I too worry sometimes that I will post something and people will take it the wrong way, but really we are just trying to paint a portrait of the truth. Not out of hate or judgement, just because people need to know what's going on! I applaud you for taking the risk and writing this hub anyways, it's really well done! Americans sometimes think that no one could hate us but lots of people and cultures see American culture as bad, even if they live here! Men- such as the one who almost ended up a hunk of meat in a hot soup- really irritate me soI'm trying to better understand their psyche and ideologies.

Terri Meredith profile image

Terri Meredith 4 years ago from Pennsylvania Author

Thanks again!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article