Islamic group demands Holder take action against judge’s ruling

- Jim Kouri Sunday, June 3, 2012



The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) on Wednesday demanded that Attorney General Eric Holder and the U.S. Department of Justice protect the religious liberties of Muslims after a Tennessee judge’s ruling prevented a mosque to be completed as a result of public outcry in Murfreesboro.

The judge ruled that proper public notice was not given for the May 2010 meeting that approved the site plan for the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, near Murfreesboro, Tenn. He seemed to base his ruling on the fact that anti-Muslim bigots were able to manufacture a controversy over the construction of the mosque, the site of which has been the target of hate vandalism, said CAIR officials after the ruling.

“American Muslim constitutional rights should not be diminished merely because anti-Muslim bigots are able to manufacture a controversy about what would otherwise be normal religious activities,” said CAIR Staff Attorney Gadeir Abbas.

“If the Rutherford County Planning Commission does not immediately issue new permits for the mosque, we urge the Department of Justice to intervene in this case to support the religious rights of Tennessee Muslims,” he stated in a media release on Wednesday.

“Looking at [Attorney General] Holder’s past actions, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him send a contingent of DOJ lawyers to pressure the judge and local politicians to acquiesce to the wishes of CAIR in spite of its history as a Muslim front group for terrorist groups,” according to well-known counterterrorist and security expert Joseph Nellis, a former law enforcement commander.

Several groups, including the far-left, George Soros-supported group the Center for American Progress, called the judge’s decision and the public outcry that preceded it “bigoted.”

“Using a common talking point of the left, Abbas claimed the ruling would be similar to a judge in the 1950’s blocking construction of an African-American church in a White neighborhood because of the “controversy” created by racists. Of course, that’s nonsense,” said political strategist Mike Baker.

“To many observers, it appears strange that President Barack Obama and his Justice Department would entertain any demands made by CAIR since, in 2007, theDepartment of Justice declared CAIR a co- conspirator in the famous Holy Land Foundation criminal case,” Baker noted.

USA Today published a news story yesterday that stated, “Kevin Vodak, litigation director of the Chicago chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, says a 2000 federal law meant to prevent zoning laws from discriminating against religious institutions is a potent tool. He cited the law—the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act—in a pending federal lawsuit against DuPage County, Ill., for ‘unlawful conduct and discriminatory practices’ when it denied a permit for the Irshad Learning Center in 2010.”

The Investigative Project on Terrorism’s Steven Emerson has noted in several studies the questionable associations and actions by many of CAIR’s leaders that cast serious doubt on its claims of moderation and restraint. Some have committed criminal acts themselves; others have ties to organizations with connections to Islamic extremism.

Those convicted of direct criminal activity include Ghassan Elashi, a founding board member of CAIR-Texas; Randall (Ismail) Royer, once a communications specialist for the national group, and Bassam Khafagi, the organization’s one-time director of community relations, according to Emerson.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47085#When:03:16:38Z

‘IT’S PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL’: KANSAS GOVERNOR SIGNS BILL BLOCKING ISLAMIC LAW IN COURTS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

(Photo: AP)

(The Blaze/AP) — Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback has signed a law aimed at keeping the state’s courts or government agencies from basing decisions on Islamic or other foreign legal codes, and a national Muslim group’s spokesman said Friday that a court challenge is likely.

The new law, taking effect July 1, doesn’t specifically mention Shariah law, which broadly refers to codes within the Islamic legal system.  Instead, it says courts, administrative agencies or state tribunals can’t base rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant the parties the same rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions.

“This bill should provide protection for Kansas citizens from the application of foreign laws,” said Stephen Gele, spokesman for the American Public Policy Alliance, a Michigan group promoting model legislation similar to the new Kansas law. “The bill does not read, in any way, to be discriminatory against any religion.”

But supporters have worried specifically about Shariah law being applied in Kansas court cases, and the alliance says on its website that it wants to protect Americans’ freedoms from “infiltration” by foreign laws and legal doctrines, “especially Islamic Shariah Law.”

Brownback’s office notified the state Senate of his decision Friday, but he actually signed the measure Monday. The governor’s spokeswoman, Sherriene Jones-Sontag, said in a statement that the bill “makes it clear that Kansas courts will rely exclusively on the laws of our state and our nation when deciding cases and will not consider the laws of foreign jurisdictions.”

Muslim groups had urged Brownback to veto the measure, arguing that it promotes discrimination. Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, said a court challenge is likely because supporters of the measure frequently expressed concern about Shariah law.

CAIR representative Ibrahim Hooper sits at the left (Photo: AP)

Hooper said of Brownback, “If he claims it has nothing to do with Shariah or Islamic law or Muslims, then he wasn’t paying attention.”

Both the Washington-based council and the National Conference of State Legislatures say such proposals have been considered in 20 states, including Kansas. Gele said laws similar to Kansas’ new statute have been enacted in Arizona, Louisiana and Tennessee.

Oklahoma voters approved a ballot initiative in 2010 that specifically mentioned Shariah law, but both a federal judge and a federal appeals court blocked it.

There are no known cases in which a Kansas judge has based a ruling on Islamic law. However, supporters of the bill have cited a pending case in Sedgwick County in which a man seeking to divorce his wife has asked for property to be divided under a marriage contract in line with Shariah law.

Supporters argue the measure simply ensures that legal decisions will protect long-cherished liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion and the right to equal treatment under the law. Gele said the measure would come into play if someone wanted to enforce a libel judgment against an American from a foreign nation without the same free speech protections.

“It is perfectly constitutional,” he said.

(Photo: AP)

The House approved the bill unanimously and the Senate, with broad, bipartisan support. Even some legislators who were skeptical of it believed it was broad and bland enough that it didn’t represent a specific political attack on Muslims.

“This disturbing recent trend of activist judges relying upon the laws of other nations has been rejected by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the Kansas House and Senate,” Jones-Sontag said.

The measure’s chief sponsor, Rep. Peggy Mast, an Emporia Republican, also has said all Kansans, including Muslims, should be comfortable with the new law, but she did not immediately respond Friday to telephone and email messages seeking comment.

Rep. Scott Schwab, an Olathe Republican, acknowledged that the measure merely “made some people happy” and that a vote against it could be cast politically as a vote in favor of Shariah law.

“Am I really concerned that Shariah law is going to take over the Kansas courts? No,” he said. “I’m more concerned about getting jobs to Kansas.”

The Michigan-based alliance advocates model “American Law for American Courts” legislation. Its website says, “America has unique values of liberty which do not exist in foreign legal systems, particularly Shariah Law.”

During the Kansas Senate’s debate on the bill earlier this month, Sen. Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican described a vote for the measure as a vote for women’s rights, adding, “They stone women to death in countries that have Shariah law.”

Hooper said supporters of such proposals have made it clear they are targeting Islamic law.

“Underlying all of this is demonizing Islam and marginalizing American Muslims,” he said.

The Blaze

Muslim Brotherhood Candidate Wins Run-Off Spot in Egyptian Presidential Election

Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood presidential candidate Mohammed Morsi, casts his vote inside a polling station, in Zakazik 80 Kilometers (50 miles) north of Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday, May 23, 2012. (AP Photo/Ahmed Gomaa)

CAIRO (AP) — The candidate of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood won a spot in a run-off election, according to partial results Friday from Egypt’s first genuinely competitive presidential election. A former prime minister and a leftist were vying for second place and a chance to run against him to become the country’s next leader.
The run-off will be held on June 16-17, pitting the two top contenders from the first round of voting held Wednesday and Thursday. The victor is to be announced June 21.
Read more...