Tag Archives: David Yerushalmi

Federal Government Authorizes Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to Censor “Anti-Islam” Speech; Lawsuit Filed

Today, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) under the First Amendment.

Section 230 provides immunity from lawsuits to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, thereby permitting these social media giants to engage in government-sanctioned censorship and discriminatory business practices free from legal challenge.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Jihad Watch.

As alleged in the lawsuit, Geller and Spencer, along with the organizations they run, are often subject to censorship and discrimination by Facebook, Twitter and YouTube because of Geller’s and Spencer’s beliefs and views, which Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube consider expression that is offensive to Muslims.

Such discrimination, which is largely religion-based in that these California businesses are favoring adherents of Islam over those who are not, is prohibited in many states, but particularly in California by the state’s anti-discrimination law, which is broadly construed to prohibit all forms of discrimination.  However, because of the immunity granted by the federal government, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are free to engage in their otherwise unlawful, discriminatory practices.

As set forth in the lawsuit, Section 230 of the CDA immunizes businesses such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube from civil liability for any action taken to “restrict access to or availability of material that” that they “consider to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

Robert Muise, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, issued the following statement:

“Section 230 of the CDA confers broad powers of censorship upon Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube officials, who can silence constitutionally protected speech and engage in discriminatory business practices with impunity by virtue of this power conferred by the federal government in violation of the First Amendment.”

Muise went on to explain:

“Section 230 is a federal statute that alters the legal relations between our clients and Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, resulting in the withdrawal from our clients of legal protections against private acts.  Consequently, per U.S. Supreme Court precedent, state action lies in our clients’ challenge under the First Amendment.”

David Yerushalmi, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, added:

“Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have notoriously censored speech that they deem critical of Islam, thereby effectively enforcing blasphemy laws here in the United States with the assistance of the federal government.”

Yerushalmi concluded:

“It has been the top agenda item of Islamic supremacists to impose such standards on the West.  Its leading proponents are the Muslim Brotherhood’s network of Islamist activist groups in the West and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which co-sponsored, with support from Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton, a U.N. resolution which called on all nations to ban speech that could promote mere hostility to Islam.  Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are falling in line, and we seek to stop this assault on our First Amendment freedoms.”

AFLC Co-Founders and Senior Counsel Robert J. Muise and David Yerushalmi, along with the plaintiffs in this case, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, will hold a Press Call from 2:00-2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 13.  To access this press conference call, dial (641) 715-3655 and enter code 111815.

2015 Freedom Flame Award: Rep. Trent Franks

Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-08) accepts the 2015 Freedom Flame Award.

 

Mayor Beth Van Duyne of Irving, Texas speaks about her opposition to shariah in her hometown

 

Mr. Irwin Hochberg honored for his service during the 2015 Freedom Flame award dinner

 

 Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

 

Center for Security Policy counsel David Yerushalmi

Why the US and Russia Won’t Be Coming Head to Head in Ukraine

Donate Now
Secure Freedom Radio is made possible by listeners like you.

With John Bolton, Fred Fleitz, David Yerushalmi, Bill Roggio

Former US Ambassador to the UN JOHN BOLTON discusses the present state of Ukraine and the Russian-Crimean relationship, the ease of economic sanctions on Iran, and the Administration’s continued executive overreaches.

FRED FLEITZ, of Lignet.com and senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, provides his analysis on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Benghazi report, the overall politicization of intelligence, and what the news media ultimately overlooked.

DAVID YERUSHALMI, co-founder of the American Freedom Law Center, analyzes a recent ruling on the NYPD’s mapping of Muslims in the NY-NJ area in an effort to target jihadists hiding within the civilian population. He also examines the implications of a court decision that YouTube must take down the controversial film “Innocence of Muslims,” which was blamed by the Obama Administration for the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack.

Managing editor of The Long War Journal BILL ROGGIO explains the complicated, and at times strained, relationships between Iran, Al Qaeda, and the many Al Qaeda affiliates springing up across the globe.

Muslim Claiming “Defamation” Caves In; Dismisses Lawsuit against National Security Experts Who Exposed His Ties to Terrorism

A former “Multicultural Relations” officer at the Ohio Department of Homeland Security (OHS) who was fired for falsifying his background filed a notice today in Ohio state court, dismissing his “defamation” lawsuit filed against several national security experts for publishing reports about his role as a former high-ranking official in the Jordanian government and his ties to terrorist organizations.  The notice came in response to a motion filed on behalf of the security experts by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), which argued that the lawsuit lacked merit and should be dismissed by the court.

Omar Alomari, a Muslim who emigrated from Jordan in 1978, claimed that the experts cast him in a “false light” by publishing false statements about him and, as a result of the statements, tortiously interfered with a business relationship by causing him to be fired.

AFLC filed its motion to dismiss on May 28 on behalf of Todd Alan Sheets, Stephen Coughlin, John Guandolo, and Patrick Poole, who specialize on the Muslim Brotherhood and the sharia-driven threat of stealth jihad to America.  AFLC is representing the experts along with local co-counsel David W.T. Carroll of Carroll, Ucker & Hemmer, LLC.

In its motion to dismiss, AFLC argued that Alomari’s allegations lack the requisite elements to sustain either cause of action.  Moreover, the facts demonstrate that the OHS terminated Alomari because he falsified his background and covered up an illicit relationship he had with a student while he was teaching at a local community college.

David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented: “It is likely that Alomari folded his hand so he can re-file this case with another lawyer, perhaps with a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas lawyer from CAIR.  Under Ohio law, it appears that this option still remains.  Nonetheless, the writing is on the wall for Mr. Alomari.  If he wants to re-file this frivolous action, then the American Freedom Law Center is prepared – like always – to fight back against this form of Islamist ‘lawfare,’ which is nothing more than an attack on the constitutional rights of Americans who speak out against sharia-adherent Islam.”

The Center for American Progress’ Willful Blindness

The Center for American Progress (CAP) unveiled its report Foreign Law Bans: Legal Uncertainties and Practical Problems at a May 16, 2013, event at CAP’s Washington, DC, headquarters.  CAP’s analysts are unconcerned by the influence of sharia and other foreign laws in America.

CAP’s event and report opposed state-level legislative efforts across the United States to implement versions of the American Law for American Courts (ALAC) model law of the American Public Policy Alliance (APPA).  The text of this law voids any foreign legal decision not respecting the “same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions.”  Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee have adopted such laws.

Stephen M. Gelé, a Louisiana lawyer active in his state’s adoption of ALAC, explored its rationale at Breitbart.  Gelé analyzed six appellate cases reviewing trial court decisions with varying results based upon troubling elements of sharia.  Gelé drew upon 50 state court appellate cases involving sharia law documented in a Center for Security Policy (CSP) study.

Contradicting CAP arguments that existing law negated sharia’s influence on the American judiciary, Gelé cautioned that “some appellate opinions, and almost all trial court judgments, are not widely published.” “Many, if not most, trial court decisions applying sharia” underwent no appeal, a process costing $10,000-50,000 in divorce and child custody cases.  Regardless, “women and children should not be forced to play legal Russian roulette” with courts “applying legal doctrines, including sharia, inconsistent with American constitutional rights and public policy.”

Similar concerns prompted me at the end of the CAP panel (mark 1:13 on the online video) to ask about any “seepage” of sharia norms into American free speech jurisprudence.  As referenced by me, in recent years several American incidents involving Islam and free speech have been deeply disturbing.  An October 2011 assault by a Muslim immigrant upon an atheist mocking Islam’s Prophet Muhammad in a Pennsylvania parade, for example, led to a district court judge dismissing clearly documented criminal charges amidst his discussion of Islamic prohibitions on blasphemy.

Another concern is so-called “libel tourism” in which various Muslim individuals have sought libel judgments against American authors in foreign jurisdictions not possessing America’s strict free speech safeguards.  In response, the APPA, the Middle East Forum’s (MEF) Legal Project (LP), and others have promoted “Rachel’s Law,” named for Rachel Ehrenfeld after being found guilty in a British court for libelously accusing a Saudi prince of funding terrorism.  Now in effect at the federal level and in several states, such laws prevent the enforcement of foreign libel judgments not respecting American free speech standards.  As indicated by me in my question, Rachel’s Law parallels the analysis of ALAC with respect to the single issue of libel, and ALAC would make any specific Rachel’s Law unnecessary.

David Yerushalmi, derided in the CAP report as the key “anti-Islam” activist behind the foreign law bans, meanwhile, has taken on along with his colleague Robert Muise at the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) several cases defending free speech involving Islam.  AFLC, for example, defeated breaching the peace charges brought against four Christians who distributed religious literature to Muslims at a 2010 Dearborn, Michigan, Arab festival.  In a civil rights suit against Dearborn city officials, AFLC later obtained a settlement including a city apology for the arrest and prosecution.  AFLC is similarly currently litigating another case involving the very same Dearborn Arab festival in 2012 and proselytizing Christians.

Intricate legal concerns involving posited unintended consequences from foreign law bans dominated the CAP panel and report.  As a matter of principle, however, CAP and its allied panelists seemed to recognize no threat in sharia, as the recorded response to my question shows.  Report coauthor Faiza Patel from the Brennan Center for Justice, for example, discussed the judicial “Void as against Public Policy Rule” previously cited by the panel and the CAP report such that any free speech infringement “would be kicked out.”  Yet as this article indicates,this rule, in the words of the APPA, is often unavailing “because state legislatures have generally not been explicit about what their public policy is relative to foreign laws.”

The panel’s comments were in accord with the report’s assertion that the “basic tenets of Sharia would be familiar to any Christian or Jew:  faith in a single god, prayer, charitable giving, and fasting.”  Many might disagree with this assessment such as Christians around the world suffering from sharia-based religious repression in Muslim-majority countries such as Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, as documented by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF).

On the other hand, a previous CAP report, Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America, lists Yerushalmi and his Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE) among the “five key think tanks led by scholars who are primarily responsible for orchestrating the majority of anti-Islam messages polluting our national discourse today.”  The Middle East Forum and its president Daniel Pipes also make the list.

The Middle East Forum’s Legal Project receives a brief description in this report as an entity seeking “to limit defamation lawsuits brought by…aggrieved Muslim organizations” that assert “their constitutionally protected right of using the legal system for redress.”  In particular, the Iranian-American Seid Hassan Daioleslam might differ with this assessment after the Legal Project helped him defeat a defamation suit brought by Iran’s American lobby, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC).  NIAC’s meritless suit ended with dismal and $184,000 in sanctions for NIAC’s malfeasance in altering and hiding documents during discovery.

CAP’s willful blindness to the continued encroachment of sharia in the American court system continues to permeate its repeated faulty analysis.

Federal Lawsuit Exposes Massive CAIR Fraud and Cover-up

Washington, D.C. (November 26, 2012) – Last Friday, the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. and the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed a devastating legal brief supported by hundreds of pages of evidence, asking a federal judge to find the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) liable to five of its former clients for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The legal brief demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that CAIR is a criminal organization that deceptively holds itself out to the public as the nation’s largest Muslim-American civil rights organization.

The brief and supporting evidence were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in two companion cases, Saiyed v. CAIR and Lopez v. CAIR, in which David Yerushalmi is lead counsel.  The brief and supporting evidence overwhelmingly demonstrate that CAIR was involved in a massive criminal fraud and cover-up that injured numerous client-victims who had looked to CAIR for legal assistance, yet the CAIR “attorney” allegedly handling their cases was in fact not an attorney.

Yerushalmi, who is also Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented, “The evidence has long suggested that CAIR is an organization set up by the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas to further its aims of stealth Jihad in the United States,” referring to the fact that CAIR was named by the federal government as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial.  “According to the facts that are carefully laid out in our legal brief and fully supported by the record evidence,” Yerushalmi explained, “CAIR has engaged in a massive criminal fraud in which numerous CAIR clients have been victimized, and because of the CAIR cover-up many still don’t realize it.  The fact that CAIR has victimized Muslims and non-Muslims alike demonstrates that it is only looking out for itself and its ongoing efforts to bilk donors out of millions of dollars of charitable donations thinking they are supporting a legitimate organization.”

Five former clients of CAIR filed the two lawsuits in federal court alleging common law and statutory fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against CAIR.  These two lawsuits followed an earlier lawsuit which had also alleged that CAIR’s fraudulent conduct amounted to racketeering, a federal RICO crime.  In that case, the court dismissed the RICO counts, concluding that CAIR’s conduct as alleged was fraudulent but not a technical violation of RICO.  The two civil lawsuits were filed by Yerushalmi on January 6, 2010, and because they arise out of the same facts, the cases were consolidated.

The supporting evidence, which was compiled after more than a year and a half of contentious discovery that involved numerous document requests, motions to compel the production of documents that CAIR was concealing, and multiple depositions of high-ranking CAIR officials, shows that Morris Days, the “Resident Attorney” and “Civil Rights Manager” at the now defunct CAIR-MD/VA chapter in Herndon, Virginia, was in fact not an attorney and that he failed to provide legal services for clients who came to CAIR for legal representation.  The evidence also shows that CAIR knew of this fraud and purposefully conspired with Days to keep the CAIR clients from discovering that their legal matters were being mishandled or not handled at all.  While Yerushalmi and AFLC represent the five plaintiffs in these two lawsuits, three of whom are Muslim Americans, according to CAIR’s internal documents, there were many more victims of the CAIR fraud scheme.

As set forth in the court filings, CAIR knew or should have known that Days was not a lawyer when it hired him.  But, like many organizations accused of wrongdoing, things got worse when CAIR officials were confronted with clear evidence of Days’ fraudulent conduct.  Rather than come clean and attempt to rectify past wrongs, CAIR conspired with Days to conceal and further the fraud.  To this end, CAIR officials purposefully concealed the truth about Days from the clients, law enforcement, and the media.  When CAIR did receive calls from irate clients about Days’ failure to provide competent legal services, CAIR fraudulently deceived them about Days’ relationship with CAIR, suggesting that he was never actually employed by CAIR.

Robert Muise, co-counsel in the lawsuit and Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, commented: “The overwhelming evidence marshaled in this case will finally put to rest the myth fabricated by CAIR’s PR machine and perpetrated by a complicit media that this is a legitimate Muslim-American civil rights organization.  This lawsuit strips away CAIR’s veil of legitimacy.”

American Freedom Law Center Resources:

Press Release

Memo (Brief) (PDF)

Facts (Brief) (PDF)

AFLC Demands End to Taxpayer Funding of Sharia

Today, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, asking the Court to review an appellate court decision which held that a federal taxpayer lacked “standing” to challenge the constitutionality of the federal government’s use of taxpayer funds to support sharia.

This past June, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that a federal taxpayer lacked “standing” to challenge the government’s use of taxpayer funds to support sharia-based activities.  The case, Murray v. United States Department of Treasury, et al., was brought by AFLC Co-Founders and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise on behalf of plaintiff Kevin Murray, a taxpayer and former combat Marine who served in Iraq.  The federal lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleged that the U.S. government’s takeover and financial bailout of AIG violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in that taxpayer dollars were directly funding AIG’s sharia-based businesses.

Muise, who drafted the petition and argued the case before the Sixth Circuit, commented: “The Sixth Circuit’s decision directly conflicts with controlling Supreme Court precedent, which holds that a federal taxpayer has standing to advance an as-applied Establishment Clause challenge to the impermissible use of congressionally-appropriated federal tax funds.  Here, there is no question that federal tax money was being used to fund Islamic religious practices in violation of the Constitution.  The Sixth Circuit’s decision effectively immunizes congressional spending that supports sharia from an as-applied constitutional challenge, thereby undermining the fundamental purpose of the Establishment Clause.”

At the time of the government bailout beginning in September 2008 and continuing to the present, AIG was – and still is – the world leader in promoting sharia-compliant insurance products.  As the Sixth Circuit acknowledged in its opinion, “‘Sharia’ refers to Islamic law based on the teachings of the Quran.  It is the Islamic code embodying the way of life for Muslims and is intended to serve as the civic law in Muslim countries.”  Moreover, sharia is the legal doctrine that demands capital punishment for apostasy and blasphemy and provides the legal and political mandates for global jihad followed religiously by the world’s Muslim terrorists.  By propping up AIG with taxpayer funds, AFLC argued, the U.S. government directly and indirectly promotes Islam and, more troubling, sharia.  In addition, as the Sixth Circuit noted in its opinion, Murray objects to the use of his tax money to support sharia because it “forms the basis for the global jihadist war against the West and the United States.”

After a year of document requests, depositions of current and former government witnesses, and three separate subpoenas issued to AIG and the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Yerushalmi and Muise filed a motion for summary judgment in 2010, arguing that the undisputed facts demonstrate that the government, through its absolute control and ownership of AIG, and with tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, has directly and indirectly promoted and supported sharia as a religious legal doctrine in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Indeed, in its opinion, the Sixth Circuit acknowledged that “AIG subsidiaries ensure the Sharia-compliance of its SCF products by obtaining consultation from ‘Sharia Supervisory Committees.’  The members of these committees are authorities in Sharia law and oversee the implementation of SCF products by reviewing AIG’s operations, supervising the development of SCF products, and evaluating the compliance of these products with Sharia law.”  The court further acknowledged that “AIG’s subsidiaries received a significant portion of the funds AIG received from the federal government” and that “[s]ix AIG subsidiaries have marketed and sold SCF products since AIG began receiving capital injections from the federal government.”  Most important, the court acknowledged that “[n]either party disputes that Treasury Department financing supported all of AIG’s businesses, including the subsidiaries that marketed SCF products.”

Yerushalmi remarked, “This case is ripe for review and reversal.  If the government is permitted to take over a major insurance company with taxpayer dollars and use those tax dollars to promote sharia, an Islamic religious doctrine, then the Establishment Clause is meaningless when dressed up as the government doing business.  Once again, we see our Constitution being cast aside when Islam is involved.”

Published at American Freedom Law Center

Anti-Jihad Advertisement Given OK

Last Friday, a federal judge for the District of Columbia granted the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC)’s request on behalf of its clients for an injunction to halt the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)’s censorship of a pro-Israel/anti-jihad bus advertisement.  The judge ordered the “Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [to] display Plaintiffs’ advertisement no later than 5 p.m. on October 8, 2012.”  The planned advertisement states, “In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man.  Support Israel.  Defeat Jihad.”

 

 

United States District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer granted the request after AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise presented a compelling case in which he argued that the WMATA’s refusal to run the advertisement out of a vague and speculative fear of Muslim mob violence violates AFLC’s clients’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech.  The request is part of a lawsuit filed by AFLC on behalf of the bus advertisement’s sponsors, the Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI), Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer.

Muise commented, “Today, Judge Collyer affirmed that our fundamental right to freedom of speech cannot be suppressed by mob rule.  This is not only a victory for our clients, but it is a clear victory for all freedom-loving Americans.”

On September 18, 2012, the WMATA decided to delay running a pro-Israel/anti-jihad advertisement on its Metro system until some “future date” due to alleged concerns about “the situations happening around the world,” “world events,” and the “security and safety” of its passengers.   The WMATA’s decision was based in response to the ongoing violence in Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere in an alleged protest of free speech in the United States that is critical of Islam.  As a result of the WMATA’s censorship, AFLC filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the advertisement’s sponsors, which challenges the WMATA’s unconstitutional restriction on FDI’s right to engage in protected speech in a public forum.

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi commented: “As Judge Collyer wisely ruled, the WMATA clearly violated the Constitution.  In recent weeks, sharia-adherent Muslims – foreign and domestic – have called for a ban on all speech that is critical of Islam. Unfortunately, the WMATA was quick to comply.  But, our clients’ speech is protected under the First Amendment, and any efforts by Islamists and acquiescing government agencies to subvert our most fundamental freedoms must be resisted with the full force of the Constitution.”

This victory in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia follows on the heels of a New York federal judge ordering New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to display the same advertisement after the MTA had initially refused to run it in September 2011, claiming that the advertisement violated the MTA’s policy against displaying “images or information that demean an individual or group of individuals on account of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation.”  AFLC filed the New York federal lawsuit and obtained a judgment on behalf FDI, Geller, and Spencer, resulting in the advertisement running in New York City beginning on Monday, September 24th.

Released by American Freedom Law Center

Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases

Introduction

Purview

This study evaluates published appellate legal cases that involved “conflict of law” issues between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law. For every case in this sample drawn from published appellate legal cases, there are innumerable cases at the trial level that remain unnoticed except by the participants. Thus, this report is a only a sample of possible cases—a “tip of the iceberg”—of legal cases involving Shariah in local, state and federal courts.

Our findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Shariah law in U.S. state court cases; yet we found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases. Others state with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy; yet we found 15 Trial Court cases, and 12 Appellate Court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in the case at bar. The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with Constitutional protections. This is a serious issue and should be a subject of public debate and engagement by policymakers.

Purpose

With the publication of this study and subsequent studies now in preparation, our objective is to encourage an informed, serious and civil public debate and policymakers’ engagement with the issue of Shariah law in the United States of America. This public debate is more urgent than ever before, as organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and their
salafist coalition partners state openly their intent to impose the Shariah State and Shariah law as dominant across all Muslim majority countries. Institutionalized, authoritative Shariah doctrine is comprehensive and by definition without limit in its ambitions and scope. It includes legally mandated, recommended, permitted, discouraged and prohibited practices that are explicitly biased against women, homosexuals, non-Muslims, former Muslims and those designated as blasphemers.

United States universities and colleges are increasingly offering courses and specializations In Shariah law, including business schools, law schools and general courses. The academic study of all kinds of comparative law including Shariah is worthwhile; but in many cases, these courses may not provide full information on the conflicts between Shariah and Western legal traditions and values.

In addition, there are organizations and individuals within the United States actively and openly advocating for the establishment of Shariah law in America, especially for personal status and family law. A prominent one is the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America1 with more than 100 members including local Imams and Shariah authorities across America, as well as Shariah authorities from other countries. AMJA promotes the adherence to Shariah law when possible in all legal and civic activities by Muslim Americans, and in some cases, by non-Muslims.

Given these stated goals of AMJA and similar organizations, this study was conducted to discover the extent to which Shariah law had in fact entered U.S. state courts. News reports have identified individual cases of plaintiffs, defendants or judges citing Shariah or Islamic law. Many groups and individuals have raised concerns about state courts citing foreign and transnationalist laws and precedents, including Shariah law. The American Public Policy Alliance, a non-partisan organization that advocates for the Constitutionality of U.S. and state laws and public policies, has drafted the American Laws for American Courts Act (ALAC) to prevent enforcement of foreign legal decisions that violate Constitutional protections and liberties. That ALAC Act, which has passed in Tennessee, Louisiana and Arizona and to date has not been legally challenged on any grounds, was used as a methodological tool to define which Shariah-related cases in state courts were in conflict with the Constitution or state public policies.

1 Andrew Bostom and Al-Mutarjim, “Chairman King: Subpoena the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America,” Pajamas Media, March 1, 2011. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/congressman-king-subpoena-the-assembly-of-muslim-jurists-of-america-amja/

Frank Gaffney’s Warning for America

By Jack Kemp, The American Thinker.

On the morning of April 24, Frank Gaffney, Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy, held a live public gathering and online briefing in Washington to discuss his latest project.  Gaffney’s organization has produced a ten-part video course, which Gaffney narrates, on the Muslim Brotherhood in America.  This free course, lasting around ten hours, can be accessed at www.muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com.  It explains why we are not winning the war against jihad in America today and names the names of those responsible for the current situation.

Preceding Mr. Gaffney’s main talk was Harry E. Soyster, a retired U.S. Army general and member of Gaffney’s research team.  He pointed out that the CIA’s published Book of World Facts (and trends) didn’t even mention religion as a significant factor in politics and thus is quite myopic in its worldview.  It was also mentioned during this gathering that a senior State Department official had said that “the war on terror is over” since we have “killed most of Al Qaida.”  The general also mentioned was that in Italy today, crucifixes are being removed from all public places so as not to offend Muslims.  Gen. Soyster recalled, in years past, having to register a car in Italy and going to a police station where there was a crucifix on the wall, as it was considered a normal part of Italian culture.  Speaking about both Italy and the U.S., he concluded that with the attacks on our culture, the government refuses to look at the true situation and is thus limiting (hindering) itself and stopping any chance of victory (in this profound culture war).

Frank Gaffney then took the podium to give a basic refutation of a prevalent myth today, stating that although we can eliminate a number of semi-literate jihadists overseas, the major thrust of the jihadists now in America is to engage in a civilizational jihad.  This stealth jihad currently overshadows the violent acts of such people as Nidal Malik Hasan at Ft. Hood or Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to set off a bomb in Times Square in New York.  Gaffney is talking about a civilizational jihad consisting of lawfare, multiple court cases used to financially drain defendants and inhibit free speech, and “insidious informational dominance” that results in Americans imposing a doctrine on ourselves of not offending organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood as they attempt to impose demands of silence at the expense of our Constitution.  Also widespread is a civilizational jihad technique of takiya — deception — claiming that attempts to influence and change our laws and culture aren’t what they clearly are.  Mr. Gaffney stated plainly that the Muslim Brotherhood’s objectives are indistinguishable from those of al-Qaeda.  In fact, he called civilizational jihad “pre-violent” and not merely “non-violent.”

The briefing crowd was then shown a fifteen-minute video executive summary of the ten-part online video course on The Muslim Brotherhood in America.  The summary touched upon a number of subjects and was narrated by the Center for Security Policy’s president.

The first part was a criticism of the constant apologies one sees offered to jihadists, particularly by our higher-level military officers.  Also, there was mention that U.S. soldiers themselves are “taught to talk in submissive terms” about Islam.  Nidal Malik Hasan’s attack at Ft. Hood was classified by the government as “workplace violence,” to give an example.

Gaffney then identified Grover Norquist, the tax protester and associate of Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi, as one of the enablers of the Muslim Brotherhood in the latter’s efforts to influence American government leadership at the time of time of the George W. Bush administration.  This type of influence has continued under the Obama administration with the placing of Muslims who advocate civilizational jihad in high places.  These people advocate policies that do not speak the truth of the Muslim Brotherhood’s self-professed programs of wanting to change America to a sharia-compliant state along with continued attempts to normalize the suppression of free speech as it relates to jihadists.

In the final part of the fifteen-minute overview film, Gaffney discusses the last of the ten-part video course, which goes into some detail about what can be done by individuals and groups to stop this assault on our values by civilizational jihad.  There are listings of (re)sources at other websites given in that lesson.  At the conclusion of the video preview, Mr. Gaffney mentioned that today, the New York City Police Department is being attacked politically, that the Muslim Public Affairs Council is now “educating” the government and calling on Attorney General Holder to investigate the NY Police Department.  One would assume that the offense of the NYPD is daring to investigate, find, report, and act on jihadist activities.

“We have to start to understand. It is our purpose to start this debate,” Mr. Gaffney said in concluding his prepared remarks.  And this was followed by questions by those in attendance and by some online participants.

Someone asked about Huma Abedin, the member of a Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated group, wife of former Congressman Anthony Weiner, and current political confidante of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  Frank Gaffney replied that because he has no subpoena power, he is not sure what she is doing, but he knows from public records that Hillary Clinton just gave $1.5 billion to the current post-Mubarak government of Egypt.

The next question, though provocative, was treated seriously by Mr. Gaffney.  It was asked whether the film and the briefing was a slander against Muslims.  Gaffney replied that such wasn’t the case and that he knows that there are millions of Muslims who don’t want to live under sharia — Muslims who came to the U.S. to get away from sharia-based governments.  He further stated that during the Cold War, a person’s loose association with communists was considered enough to make him suspect but that current definitions of what constitutes a jihadist are not as strict.  Gaffney said that he hoped his ten-part video course will be seen as a legitimate inquiry into the nature of the situation today.

Something not mentioned in Mr. Gaffney’s reply was that his Center for Security Policy was a participant and sponsor of the early March public show of support by moderate Muslims in favor of the New York City Police Department and their Commissioner Ray Kelly, an event led by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser.  In fact, Mr. Gaffney’s executive vice president, former Congressman Fred Grandy, was a participant at that event, as I reported in American Thinker.

“To the extent that we ignore the connections of these groups we are insuring our government’s defeat in civilizational jihad,” Gaffney added.  He further stated that the Justice Department has ordered the FBI to purge documents that “offended” Muslim groups because of complaints from the Muslim Brotherhood, thus making the training that FBI agents receive less detailed as to various past facts uncovered and conclusions made, despite whose feelings might be allegedly hurt.

A question was posed by someone listening on the internet in Kansas, asking whether the State Department should classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a hostile foreign power — essentially a terrorist organization.  Gaffney replied that that is his own recommendation.

Another question led to a detailed discussion of a stealth jihad tactic known as having an “Interfaith Dialog.”  This often extends the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood into churches and leads to changes in how churches act and perceive the Brotherhood.  There was also a discussion of schools that require young Americans to pretend they are Muslims for a period of time — an indulgence given to no other religion in our secular schools.

The question of how sharia is being addressed in American law schools got a response from Mr. Gaffney in which he stated that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has been a major promoter of sharia financial education in law schools.  This led to another discussion of a war on women in America caused by courts in the U.S. supporting a sharia-compliant decision in 23 of 27 cases brought so far.  New Jersey had a famous — one could say infamous — case where a woman was being raped and beaten by her husband, and the family court upheld the practice because it was part of sharia cultural practices, refusing to grant a restraining order against her Moroccan husband.

One of the final questions asked of Mr. Gaffney was all but a stealth jihad act in itself.  Someone inquired whether sharia law was similar to Orthodox Jewish Halacha Law, since both have many strictures.  Rather than dismissing this out of hand, Gaffney addressed the question with an answer formulated by David Yerushalmi, an Orthodox Jewish attorney he works with.  Halacha, Gaffney stated, does not advocate the overthrow of the government and requires submission to the secular law of the land.  What went unsaid was that this is very different from sharia law, which seeks to establish a caliphate and make sharia the law of the land, negating the U.S. Constitution.  I believe that Mr. Gaffney answered this question more for the audience listening in on the internet and for the other people in the room than for the questioner, who appeared to attempt to advance a false equivalence between the two religions’ laws.

Another of the final topics mentioned was the original prosecutorial intention of the successful 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation case convictions — namely, for that case to be a first step in further investigations and trials.  But Attorney General Holder has been unwilling to investigate or bring to trial anyone else in a Phase Two follow-up.

Among these final remarks, Mr. Gaffney made a plea for his cause in relation to the upcoming U.S. elections.  He asked if we, as Americans, want more submissions to sharia — or do we want something different?  What he didn’t say is what I will now add.

It would be too easy to assume that one political party is automatically better in regard to fighting a civilizational jihad than the other party.  In fact, the extent of the attack on our society’s institutions in the name of tolerance (that is, of our tolerance alone) has not been fully understood by either political party’s leadership.  It is up to all of us to be, as Thomas Jefferson said, eternally vigilant as to the price of our liberty.  And this issue will not go away if your favorite political party wins in November.  There will still be much to do to keep our Republic.