Attempts to Push Sharia Law on America

[MinutemanCO]

Fuckers. And right up the road, too.

[American Patriot]

Perhaps we should give in Minuteman and let them have their way? We won't have to fight anyone then, right?

[MinutemanCO]

Where would the fun in that be?

[American Patriot]

True....

Maybe... we should go there and hang our own flags...

[MinutemanCO]

Now you're talking.

[vector7]

Companion Threads:

• Holder Drops New Black Panther Case for Racial Reasons
• The Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated both the Clinton and Obama Administrations
• The Left's Unholy Alliance with Islam
• Obama's 'Civilian National Security Force'
• Is Obama a Muslim?
• New Black Panthers Target Jews, Conservatives and Tea Partiers
• Ahmadinejad met with Farrakahan and New Black Panthers
• New Black Panthers Plot With Ahmadinejad to Overthrow America
• Iran has 'penetrated' the Obama Administration
• Holder: Justice Department Has Re-Opened The "Civil Rights Division"
• Eric Holders new Terror Warning: "We are now focused on Americans taking up arms"

DOJ investigating L.A. suburb for rejecting mosque expansion

Posted on November 21, 2011 by creeping

The Dept. of Islamic Justice (or Jihad, or in Justice) is at it again. And get this, members of the DOJ stumbled upon the mosque by reading an LA Times blog post in which Muslims stated they felt discriminated against.

Does the DOJ regularly get involved in local matters after reading blog posts? Or did Hamas-linked, FBI-banned CAIR contact them about the decision?

Intimidation, then legal jihad if the town doesn’t submit to Islam asap.
via DOJ Investigating L.A. Suburb for Rejecting Mosque Expansion | Main Justice.

The Justice Department is launching an inquiry into the decision of a Los Angeles suburb to deny a local mosque’s planned expansion.

Federal officials are looking into whether or not Lomita, California city council members violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act when they rejected the construction plans almost two years ago, according to the Daily Breeze, a local newspaper.

City Attorney Christ Hogin told the newspaper that the investigation started in July.

The city council denied that religion played a role in their decision, which they said was influenced by concerns over traffic and parking.

But the mosque’s supporters say that the city’s planning commission and municipal staff had recommended that the plans — to build a two- story building to replace eight aging buildings on the one acre lot — be approved, and that a study had found the expansion would have no effect on traffic patterns.

The mosque’s supporters contend that anti-Muslim sentiment informed the city council’s decision to reject the proposal.

And when Justice Department officials read a May 2010 Los Angeles Times blog post which reported that members of the Mosque felt discriminated against, they decided to launch their investigation, according to the Daily Breeze.

“I believe the city’s denial of the rezoning has constituted a substantial burden on the mosque community to practice their religion,” said Ameena Qazi, an attorney with the Council on American-Islamic Relations who is representing the mosque.

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act prevents state and local authorities “from imposing a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person.”

Opponents of the expansion, however, contend that the traffic study that justified the expansion was flawed, and that allowing the mosque to expand would shrink the city’s commercial zones and possibly cause sales tax revenue to decrease.

“It’s a little alarming the federal government would come in and second-guess a land-use decision like this,” Hogin said.

Related DOJ Jihads:

• Feds plus 4 law firms seek to submit NJ town to mosque
• DOJ helps Muslim teacher shake down school for $75K over hajj
• DOJ submits another local municipality to mosque
• Georgia town approves mosque, Feds reach “settlement”
• After DOJ Threats, Controversial Georgia Mosque Wins Approval
• DOJ’s litigation jihad against officials who dare deny massive mosque expansions

Check all our posts under the category of Zoning Jihad for more on the DOJ’s mosque expansion efforts across the country.

Then read Under the U.S. Constitution, Islam and Sharia Law Are Not a Federal Concern.

[American Patriot]

About time the community stepped up and sent these fucks packing....

[vector7]

Got a Butterball turkey for Thanksgiving? You're eating halal



In "Happy Halal Thanksgiving" in the American Thinker today, Pamela Geller reveals the shocking truth: if you've gotten a Butterball turkey for Thanksgiving, it's halal:

Did you know that the turkey you're going to enjoy on Thanksgiving Day this Thursday is probably halal? If it's a Butterball turkey, then it certainly is -- whether you like it or not. In my book Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance, I report at length on the meat industry's halal scandal: its established practice of not separating halal meat from non-halal meat, and not labeling halal meat as such. And back in October 2010, I reported more little-noted but explosive new revelations: that much of the meat in Europe and the United States is being processed as halal without the knowledge of the non-Muslim consumers who buy it.

I discovered that only two plants in the U.S. that perform halal slaughter keep the halal meat separated from the non-halal meat, and they only do so because plant managers thought it was right to do so. At other meat-packing plants, animals are slaughtered following halal requirements, but then only a small bit of the meat is actually labeled halal.

Now here is yet more poisonous fruit of that scandal.

A citizen activist and reader of my website AtlasShrugs.com wrote to Butterball, one of the most popular producers of Thanksgiving turkeys in the United States, asking them if their turkeys were halal. Wendy Howze, a Butterball Consumer Response Representative, responded: "Our whole turkeys are certified halal."

In a little-known strike against freedom, yet again, we are being forced into consuming meat slaughtered by means of a torturous method: Islamic slaughter.

Halal slaughter involves cutting the trachea, the esophagus, and the jugular vein, and letting the blood drain out while saying "Bismillah allahu akbar" -- in the name of Allah the greatest.

Many people refuse to eat it on religious grounds. Many Christians, Hindus or Sikhs and Jews find it offensive to eat meat slaughtered according to Islamic ritual (although observant Jews are less likely to be exposed to such meat, because they eat kosher). [...]

Non-Muslims in America and Europe don't deserve to have halal turkey forced upon them in this way, without their knowledge or consent. So this Thanksgiving, fight for your freedom. Find a non-halal, non-Butterball turkey to celebrate Thanksgiving this Thursday. And write to Butterball and request, politely but firmly, that they stop selling only halal turkeys, and make non-halal turkeys available to Americans who still value our freedoms.

Stephanie Styons at Butterball Corporate sstyons@merrellgroup.com is the contact for those who want to let the company know their feelings about stealth halal turkeys. Also here is the Butterball website for plant locations, which lists whole turkeys as being produced at their North Carolina and Arkansas plants....

Pamela Geller has more here. This is a SIOA Action Alert:

Join our Facebook page, Boycott Butterball Turkey.

[Ryan Ruck]

Meh, not a huge deal to me. I like Kosher Coke too.

It might actually be a good sign that if there are enough Muslims out there celebrating Thanksgiving to warrant Halal turkey processing, that they are assimilated to American culture.

[American Patriot]

who cares?

i dont

[Toad]

Organic, Halal, Kosher... it's just a certain standard of food quality. I'm pretty OK with that.

I'll still wrap it in bacon and grill it. :-)

[American Patriot]

lol

how RUDE! I love it!

[Backstop]

One brick at a time, that's how they'll do it...as I've said many times before.

Thing is, with Holder in office, they're getting plenty of help.

I've included the original article for the sake of accuracy.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...ay-50000-.html

Thursday, December 01, 2011

Obama's Department of Justice is on a tear. Holder has sued, yet again, another company for lack of sharia compliance. Few companies to afford to go up against the US Department of Justice. It's a form of blackmail, extortion, that companies are forced to pay. The sharia protection racket.

America, snap out of it. Pass this on to your email lists. Get the word out. Four more years of this federally imposed supremacism and this country will be unrecognizable.

Imperial Security to pay EEOC $50K to settle religious discrimination lawsuit Business Insurance.com

PHILADELPHIA—Imperial Security Inc. has agreed to pay $50,000 to settle a federal religious discrimination lawsuit involving a Muslim employee's religious head covering, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said Monday.

The EEOC said Julie Holloway-Russell had worn a khimar—a cloth that covers her hair, ears and neck, as required by her religious beliefs—when she interviewed for a job as a security guard at the Philadelphia-based firm in November 2009. However, she was told to remove the khimar when she reported to her first work assignment. After she refused to do so, she was terminated, said EEOC regional attorney Debra Lawrence.

Why did they hire her in the first place?
The EEOC said in its statement that in addition to the $50,000 settlement, the three-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit prohibits Imperial Security from further discriminating based on religion or engaging in unlawful retaliation.

A company spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment.Charges filed with the EEOC by Muslims outweigh those filed by individuals of other identified religious groups.

Yes, because Islamic supremacists are using our courts to impose the sharia. Of course they file more lawsuits than any other group. Muslims are the first immigrant group that has ever come to this country with a ready-made model of society and government they believe to be superior to what we have here, and they mean to impose it.

http://www.businessinsurance.com/art...WS07/111129942

Imperial Security to pay EEOC $50K to settle religious discrimination lawsuit
November 28, 2011 - 3:08pm

PHILADELPHIA—Imperial Security Inc. has agreed to pay $50,000 to settle a federal religious discrimination lawsuit involving a Muslim employee's religious head covering, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said Monday.

The EEOC said Julie Holloway-Russell had worn a khimar—a cloth that covers her hair, ears and neck, as required by her religious beliefs—when she interviewed for a job as a security guard at the Philadelphia-based firm in November 2009. However, she was told to remove the khimar when she reported to her first work assignment. After she refused to do so, she was terminated, said EEOC regional attorney Debra Lawrence.

The EEOC said in its statement that in addition to the $50,000 settlement, the three-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit prohibits Imperial Security from further discriminating based on religion or engaging in unlawful retaliation.

A company spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment.Charges filed with the EEOC by Muslims outweigh those filed by individuals of other identified religious groups.

[vector7]

Monday, December 19, 2011

Unlimited Muslim Entitlement

In addition to being exempt from satirical cartoons, airline security procedures and human rights-- the chattering media classes in all their wisdom have decided that Muslims should also be exempt from the laws of economics.

Forget welfare, Muslims are now entitled to media welfare. When normal religions want to put on a show promoting their religion, they build themselves a cable channel. Sadly Bridges TV, the Muslim cable channel dedicated to challenging stereotypes, hating Jews and promoting Islam ran into some trouble when its founder and president beheaded its co-founder, who also happened to be his wife.

Muzzammil Hassan, turned out not just to be the president and founder of Bridges TV, but also a member of the Muslim Club for Men, and is now challenging stereotypes about Islam at Clinton Correctional Facility. But TLC stepped into the breach to provide Americans with more of that programming challenging stereotypes about Islam that they never asked for.

All-American Muslim was founded dedicated to the proposition that Muslims are just like the rest of us. They put on their Hijabs one head at a time just like the rest of us and promote wearing them more often than the Geico reptile comes on to sell insurance. After a media blitz for the launch of the series, the Americans, being the Islamophobic bastards that they are, turned the channel to watch something else.

In Orwell's 1984 the television sets were always turned on and only leading party members were allowed to turn down the volume. Sadly for the left that kind of programming is beyond them, though if they could you can bet there would be an Al Gore, Chris Matthews or Stephen Colbert looking back at you through your television.

While the left can't penalize viewers for choosing The Walking Dead over The Jersey Shore Goes Jihad, they can penalize advertisers, as Lowe's Home Improvement is finding out. Muslim groups have decided to play their losing hand by going after the advertisers who jumped ship in search of television shows that have actual viewers.

Mia Farrow and Russell Simmons have called for a boycott of Lowe's until the home improvement giant apologizes for not advertising on a Muslim show with bad ratings. Now that Lowe's has lost Mia Farrow's business it may have to listen, apologize and acknowledge that advertising on failing shows is a new civil right.

Forget the four freedoms, there's now a whole raft of Muslim entitlements at the expense of everyone else's freedom. It's bad enough that you can't show a Muslim terrorist on television or in a movie without CAIR's thugs knocking on your door, but now you're obligated to fund Muslim television programs in the bargain. And don't we already have PBS for that?

Fighting Muslim stereotypes is a worthwhile cause. And the best place to begin is with the bomb belt, the exploding shoes and the burning underpants. Americans don't question the patriotism of the people trying to kill them because of what's on prime time programming, but because of what's on the news.

Judge Judy's famous catchphrase is, "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining." The equivalent of that is "Don't shoot me in the head while shouting Allah Akbar and tell me it's workplace violence." Technically Major Hasan showing up on base and gunning down American soldiers was violence that took place at work. The same could be said of Muzzammil Hassan, aka Hassan Chop, who killed his wife on location at a cable channel dedicated to showing the moderate side of Islam. Or of the undocumented pilots who flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in a truly regrettable incident of workplace violence that had nothing to do with Islam.

But instead of changing their reality, Muslim advocates would rather ply us with fiction. The Arabian Nights began with the story of a feminist Muslim king who married virgins and then had them killed the next day and the woman who kept plying him with stories until he decided to spare her life. In the United States, Muslims are determined to play both Scheherazade and the King, telling us fanciful stories until they get around to chopping our heads off. And we're expected to keep retelling them to ourselves so we can go blindly into the abattoir when the time comes, and also to foot the bill.

In the movie Brazil, people were expected to foot the bill for being tortured. All-American Muslim wants to torture viewers with its insipidly malicious programming and then have them pay for the privilege next time they're shopping for a piece of plywood. Shouldn't there be some kind of limit to this kind of thing?

We're already groping senior citizens so that we don't offend a Hassan or two, burning a Koran is now a worse crime than torching the flag and all public figures are contractually obligated to sing the praises of Islam after every terrorist attack. But isn't there a limit somewhere to Muslim entitlement or does it go on forever until we're all sitting in front of televisions airing back to back episodes of All-American Muslim that can't be turned off?

In Australia, the authorities have debuted the Muslim Emergency Management Plan, which contrary to common sense is not an emergency plan for managing Muslims, it's an emergency plan for dealing with anti-Muslim incidents in the aftermath of a terrorist attack.

The plan devised by the Islamic Council of Victoria and funded by the Department of Premier and Cabinet's Office of Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship, a name that is almost as diverse in words as in people, will see to it that should a patriotic Australian citizen named Hassan blow himself up on the Route 966 bus, and if in the aftermath of that unfortunate bit of workplace violence some anti-multicultural lout tells a Muslim woman to go home, the minions of the Islamic Council of Victoria and their affiliated law enforcement contacts will have an emergency plan for dealing with the situation, whether it's long-term imprisonment, rehabilitation or subjecting them to the full run of All-Australian Muslim.

Consider that while the bodies are being scraped off the sidewalk after an act of violence that Muslim groups have no shame at all about anticipating as inevitable, police will be expected to swiftly hunt down anyone who gives a Muslim the stinkeye. Law enforcement is told that this is the best way to fight terror by winning the hearts and minds of all the Hassans who when they see Albert dragged in on a charge of Muslim Glaring in the First Degree will surely break out in a spontaneous burst of Advance Australia Fair.

But is pandering to Muslim entitlement really the way to check terror? The West has already given Islam extensive and elaborate privileges, beginning with an unquestioned status, the censorship of any offending material and the constant sycophancy of elected officials. Now that we have also decided that Muslim television shows must remain on the air and must be paid for by American companies, no matter how poorly they perform, will Hassan chop and bomb less? Or will he bomb more?

We have completely given up on getting Muslims to take responsibility for their own behavior. Like the parents of a spoiled brat who are secretly terrified of him, we praise them to the skies and crack down on anyone who might say otherwise. No one may speak ill of the little monster no matter how many vases he breaks, how many girls he rapes and how many people he kills. This self-esteem clinic that we've been running has only one purpose, and it's the same one as the spoiled brat's parents. Denial.

Muslims terrorize our governments. Our governments terrorize us. And we turn on the television to be greeted by the latest effort of our chattering classes to educate us of our irrational fear of the people trying to kill us. Feeling guilty, even though we have nothing to feel guilty about, we watch it for a few minutes and then try to turn it off, but it won't shut off. It's on every channel. And then the news finally comes on. The president is attending an Eid dinner, the Islamic council wants to let everyone know about the local mosques in their area and there's been another unfortunate incident of workplace violence involving some All-American Muslim.

[vector7]

Companion Threads:

• The Left's Unholy Alliance with Islam
• Obama Bans Terms "Islam" and "Jihad" From National Security Strategy Document
• FBI: Muslim Brotherhood deeply rooted inside U.S.
• Obama Administration using the United Nations to bypass Congress
• Obama administration introduced an anti-free speech measure

U.N. Adopts Sharia-like ‘Religious Intolerance’ Resolution Championed by Obama

Posted on December 23, 2011 by creeping
Creeping right along, without even a vote. via U.N. Adopts ‘Religious Intolerance’ Resolution Championed by Obama Administration | CNSnews.com.

(CNSNews.com) – The U.N. General Assembly on Monday adopted a resolution condemning the stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of people based on their religion, and urging countries to take effective steps “to address and combat such incidents.”

No member state called for a recorded vote on the text, which was as a result adopted “by consensus.”

The resolution, an initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), is based on one passed by the U.N.’s Human Rights Council in Geneva last spring. The State Department last week hosted a meeting to discuss ways of “implementing” it.

Every year since 1999 the OIC has steered through the U.N.’s human rights apparatus a resolution condemning the “defamation of religion,” which for the bloc of 56 Muslim states covered incidents ranging from satirizing Mohammed in a newspaper cartoon to criticism of shari’a and post-9/11 security check profiling.

Critics regard the measure as an attempt to outlaw valid and critical scrutiny of Islamic teachings, as some OIC states do through controversial blasphemy laws at home.

Strongly opposed by mostly Western democracies, the divisive “defamation” resolution received a dwindling number of votes each year, with the margin of success falling from 57 votes in 2007 to 19 in 2009 and just 12 last year.

This year’s text was a departure, in that it dropped the “defamation” language and included a paragraph that reaffirms “the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in strengthening democracy and combating religious intolerance.”

The nod to freedom of expression won the resolution the support of the U.S. and other democracies, with the Obama administration and others hailing it as a breakthrough after years of acrimonious debate.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took the opportunity of the State Department-hosted talks with foreign governments, the OIC and other international bodies last week to stress the importance of freedom of speech in the U.S. She argued that “the best way to treat offensive speech is by people either ignoring it or combating it with good arguments and good speech that overwhelms it.”

Saudi initiative singled out for praise

Nonetheless, the resolution adopted in New York on Monday does contain elements that concern some free speech and religious freedom advocates.

It calls on states “to take effective measures to ensure that public functionaries in the conduct of their public duties do not discriminate against an individual on the basis of religion or belief.”

Governments also are expected to make “a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures.”

“Effective measures” to counter cases of religious stereotyping and stigmatization include education, interfaith dialogue and “training of government officials.”

And in the worst cases, those of “incitement to imminent violence” based on religion, the resolution calls on countries to implement “measures to criminalize” such behavior.

Also of note is the fact that the resolution singles out for praise only one interfaith initiative – and that initiative was established by Saudi Arabia, a leading OIC member-state with a long history of enforcing blasphemy laws.

The resolution commends the establishment of the King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz International Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue, “acknowledging the important role that the Centre is expected to play as a platform for the enhancement of interreligious and intercultural dialogue.”

(Another clause welcomes “all international, regional and national initiatives aimed at promoting interreligious, intercultural and interfaith harmony and combating discrimination against individuals on the basis of religion or belief,” but the Saudi one alone is recognized specifically.)

Monday’s adoption of the text took place without a debate. Earlier, when a General Assembly committee considered the draft resolution, a delegate of Poland – speaking on behalf of the European Union – raised concern about the fact it mentioned by name only one center for interreligious dialogue, even though there were numerous such facilities around the world.

The E.U. was also concerned that the resolution considered the world as “monolithic religious blocs,” while religious hatred was primarily a threat to individual freedoms, he said.

Despite those concerns, the E.U. was prepared to join consensus and support the resolution.

The U.S. representative, John Sammis, said the United States was pleased to join the consensus.

It had been unable to support previous resolutions of this type because they sought to restrict expression and were “counterproductive,” he said, but the new one upholds respect for universal human rights.

“The United States welcomes all international, national, and regional initiatives that respect universal human rights and that recommend these types of measures to promote interfaith harmony and combating discrimination against individuals on the basis of religion or belief,” Sammis said. “Such initiatives can promote respect for religious diversity in a manner that respects universal human rights.”

[vector7]

Defense department agrees to allow Muslim cadets to wear hijabs

Muslims — posted by jeff kunerth on December, 22 2011 1:45 PM Discuss This: Comments(1,005) | Add to del.icio.us
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) announced today that the Department of Defense will begin allowing Muslim and Sikh students who wear an Islamic head scarf (hijab) or a turban to participate in the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC).

“We welcome the fact that Muslim and Sikh students nationwide will now be able to participate fully in JROTC leadership activities while maintaining their religious beliefs and practices,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.

In October, the Washington-based Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization wrote to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta after a 14-year-old Muslim student at Ravenwood High School in Brentwood, Tenn., was forced to transfer out of a JROTC class when her commanding officers told her she could not wear hijab while marching in the September homecoming parade.

CAIR requested constitutionally-protected religious accommodations for the girl and for future Muslim JROTC participants.

In a Dec. 19 letter sent to CAIR, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army Larry Stubblefield wrote:

”I have been asked to respond on behalf of the Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta to your October 13, 2011 letter concerning Miss Demin Zawity’s request to wear a religious head covering (hijab) while participating in an Army Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) event at Ravenwood High School.

“Based on your concerns, the Army has reviewed its JROTC uniform policy and will develop appropriate procedures to provide Cadets the opportunity to request the wear of religious head dress, such as the turban and hijab.

This change will allow Miss Zawity and other students the chance to fully participate in the JROTC program. Additionally, a representative from the U.S. Army Cadet Command will contact Miss Zawity and provide her the opportunity to rejoin the Ravenwood High School JROTC unit.

“The Army prides itself in being a diverse organization, comprised of individuals from many faiths and religions. We appreciate you bringing this matter to our attention.”

[American Patriot]

But Christians can't wear crosses.

[vector7]

Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Sharia

By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
updated 4:55 PM EST, Tue January 10, 2012


A federal court has blocked a measure in Oklahoma that would prevent that state's judges from considering Islamic law when making decisions.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Federal appeals court blocks an Oklahoma voter-approved measure
• The measure would ban state judges from considering Islamic, international law
• Council of American-Islamic Relations says measure violates First Amendment freedoms
• Legislator on possibility of judge factoring in Sharia law: "It should scare anyone"

(CNN) -- A federal appeals court has blocked an Oklahoma voter-approved measure barring state judges from considering Islamic and international law in their decisions.

The three-judge panel at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier injunction preventing State Question 755 from being certified until the free speech questions are resolved. The decision Tuesday allows a lawsuit brought by Islamic-American groups to move ahead to a bench trial.

"The proposed amendment discriminates among religions," said the judges.

"The Oklahoma amendment specifically names the target of its discrimination. The only religious law mentioned in the amendment is Sharia law."

A federal judge last summer had issued a temporary restraining order in favor of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which had sued to nullify the law completely.

The amendment would require Oklahoma courts to "rely on federal and state law when deciding cases" and "forbids courts from considering or using" either international law or Islamic religious law, known as Sharia, which the amendment defined as being based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.

In bringing suit, CAIR argued that the amendment violates the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. The group's local leader, Muneer Awad, has said the amendment passed in November 2010 under a campaign of fear and misinformation about Islam.

"This is an important reminder that the Constitution is the last line of defense against a rising tide of anti-Muslim bigotry in our society, and we are pleased that the appeals court recognized that fact," Awad told CNN after Tuesday's announcement.

The appeals court said voter initiatives normally should be given great deference by the courts but concluded the Oklahoma measure would be applied selectively.

Ballot supporters "do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve," said the 37-page ruling. "Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma."

State Question 755, also known as the "Save Our State" measure, was approved by a 7-3 ratio. It was sponsored by Oklahoma State Reps. Rex Duncan and Anthony Sykes, both Republicans.

"The fact that Sharia law was even considered anywhere in the United States is enough for me" to sign on, Sykes told CNN last year. "It should scare anyone that any judge in America would consider using that as precedent."

Sykes said his concern was compounded by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's comments during her confirmation hearings in June 2010 that she would be willing to consider international law when hearing cases before the court.

As written on the ballot, the measure states it would amend a state constitution section dealing with the state courts, making them "rely on federal and state law" when deciding cases, forbidding them "from considering or using international law" and "from considering or using Sharia Law."

The ballot then briefly described international law, which "deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes," and Sharia, which is "based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed."

"Shall the proposal be approved?" the ballot read, instructing voters to respond "yes" if they're for the proposal and "no" if they're against it.

Saleem Quraishi, president of the American Muslim Association of Oklahoma City, runs the Islamic Center at the Grand Mosque of Oklahoma City. He said there are more than 5,000 Muslims in the city. While there are no exact numbers for the Muslim population in the state, it is not among the larger communities, said Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR.

"It's just fear-mongering; it's nothing," Quraishi told CNN. "What's Sharia law have to do with Oklahoma?"

The Oklahoma controversy stems from a New Jersey legal case in which a Muslim woman went to a family court asking for a restraining order against her spouse, claiming he had raped her repeatedly. The judge ruled against her, saying that her husband was abiding by his Muslim beliefs regarding spousal duties. The decision was later overruled by an appellate court, but the case sparked a nationwide firestorm. The issue spread to Oklahoma, prompting the ballot initiative.

Tuesday's ruling deals only with the injunction stopping certification and enforcement of 755. There was no indication when the federal district judge would hear the larger merits of the Oklahoma case and issue a ruling, but that could be some months away. The losing side could then try again at the federal appeals court, then possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The appeals case is Awad v. Ziriax (10-6273).

[American Patriot]

I honestly DO NOT think the court can actually do this.

[vector7]

Diana Nammi speaks about the impact of sharia on women in the UK



Girls as young as nine are being forced to marry in mosques in Islington, according to the findings of a leading women’s rights group.

The Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (IKWRO) has reported that at least 30 forced marriages took place in the borough in 2010, involving at least three 11-year old and two 9-year old girls.

Similarly, the Ministry of Justice revealed details of over 30 applications for Forced Marriage Protection Orders in 2011, of which “five or fewer” were made to protect children aged 9 to 11.

Comment

IKWRO has warned that child marriages in Britain could be on the increase, with hundreds of Muslim girls facing physical, sexual and emotional abuse as a result.

Dianna Nammi, director of IKWRO said:

“They are still attending schools in Islington, struggling to do their primary school homework, and at the same time being practically raped by a middle-aged man regularly and being abused by their families. So they are a wife, but in a primary school uniform.

“The reason it doesn’t get out is because they are too terrified to speak out, and also the control their families have over them is impossible to imagine if you’re not going through it. The way it is covered up is so precise, almost unspeakable.”

Ms Nammi said that the girls are married off to family friends or family members to stop them from losing their virginity to anyone not chosen by their father.

Rojin (not her real name) told the Islington Tribune that she had been forcibly married at the age of 12 to a 32 year-old man from Birmingham, who forced her to sleep with him.

Sharia law

The marriages are conducted by Imams under sharia law, rendering them illegal and void under British law.

Yet the BBC recently reported that an increasing number of Muslims in Britain are now making use of sharia courts to resolve family and financial disputes in line with Islamic principles, with cases having tripled over the past three to five years.

A report issued by think tank Civitas in 2009 revealed that approximately 85 sharia tribunals were operating freely in the UK.

In certain circumstances the use of sharia law in the UK is legally binding.

Yet the distinction between Islamic courts and the British legal system is often blurred. Ignorance about the provision and protections enjoyed by individuals under British law, coupled with intimidation within some muslim communities, can lead to great injustices being endured by women.

Baroness Cox Bill

Last year, Baroness Cox introduced a Bill to curb the practice of sharia law in the UK by outlawing its use where it conflicts with UK law. The Bill will receive a second reading later this year.

In proposing the Bill, Baroness Cox said:

“Equality under the law is a core value of British justice. My Bill seeks to preserve that standard. My Bill seeks to stop parallel legal, or ‘quasi-legal’, systems taking root in our nation. Cases of criminal law and family law are matters reserved for our English courts alone.

“Through these proposals, I want to make it perfectly clear in the law that discrimination against women shall not be allowed within arbitration. I am deeply concerned about the treatment of muslim women by sharia Courts.

We must do all that we can to make sure they are free from any coercion, intimidation or unfairness. Many women say, ‘we came to this country to escape these practices only to find the situation is worse here’.”

Source

• The Islington Tribute

Resources

• Equal and Free Campaign
• BBC Report on increased use of sharia law
• Civitas Report
• Christian Concern: Islam
• Video: Introduction to sharia in Britain
• Video: The Impact of sharia on Women
• Video: Sonia’s Story
• Christian Concern: sharia law / UK law comparison table
• View Arbitration and Mediation (Equality) Bill
• Download Fact sheet
• Download Explanatory Note
• Download Summary Briefing