Sharia Law In America

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 2^nd 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.

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 8^th 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!