Act For America: Benghazi Hearings Part 2.

FYI - From Act For America and YouTube.com.

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Act For America: Benghazi Whistleblower Hearnings.

FYI - From Act For America/YouTube.com.

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Taking Some Time Off & Refocusing My Efforts! - PLEASE READ!

Hello All!

I hope this finds everyone doing well.  Just a quick note - I'm going to take some time off from this blog for a while.  I will still post here from time to time about different political, military, and veterans' issues, but I will be refocusing my efforts and using another blog for the majority of the time.  As many of you know, I'm very Pro Constitution, Pro Civil Liberties, and very much an advocate for the Separation of Church and State.  Because of that, with the help and blessing of ACT! For America, I am establishing an ACT! chapter in my area.  In addition to family, school, and work, this is something I really care about and plan on putting my effort into.  Please check out and follow my blog, and help spread the word.

Leland/Brunswick County (Wilmington Area), NC ACT! For America Chapter:
http://coastalnorthcarolinaactforamerica.blogspot.com/


Thanks,
Aaron
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser: Muslims Must Look In The Mirror.

FYI -
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

The following commentary by M. Zuhdi Jasser, AIFD Founder and President appeared in print and online today at this link at the New York Post. Dr. Jasser discusses the opportunity which the proposed hearings on American Muslim radicalization pose for American Muslims as we look back at the lessons of 2010.  M. Zuhdi Jasser, a physician and a former US Navy lieutenant commander, is the founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. info@aifdemocracy.org

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/why_muslims_must_look_in_the_mirror_g6HY8SYPEtYo8gHubxnNhI

Updated: Thu., Dec. 30, 2010, 4:39 AM

Why Muslims must look in the mirror

By M. ZUHDI JASSER
Last Updated: 4:39 AM, December 30, 2010
Posted: 10:51 PM, December 29, 2010

If 2010 was the year America finally woke up to political Islam's ne farious reach on US soil, with luck 2011 will be the year we launch an offensive against it. One way to begin that process is through hearings that Rep. Peter King (R-NY), the new chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, plans to hold on American Muslim radicalization.

Attention to this issue offers an opportunity for American Muslims to confront the radicalization problem and provide solutions -- as only they can.

My group, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, believes these hearings will shed light on the diversity of American Muslims, giving our community a chance to step from behind the veil of Muslim victimization and address head-on the need for long-overdue ideological reforms.

Alas, the announcement of the hearings has triggered heated denunciations by groups like ISNA, CAIR and MPAC, which try to deny and obfuscate the connection between "political Islam," or Islamism, and terror.
This year, the debate on the development of the Ground Zero mosque brought the discussion of political Islam to the front page of every newspaper. While raucous at times, it provided an opportunity for Muslims who don't toe the line of American Islamist organizations to present an alternative vision for American Muslims -- one based in American values and Muslim reform.

Unfortunately, political correctness still too often dominates incidents involving Islamists. This year, the Pentagon released a report on Maj. Nidal Hasan's Fort Hood attack, titled "Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood." The report was intended to convey to military commanders whatever lessons were learned from the incident, so as to prevent similar attacks in the future. Yet it never mentioned the word Islam or Muslim. Nowhere to be found was any dissection of Hasan's slide into militant Islamism or of his relationship with his homegrown jihadist mentor, Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Meanwhile, President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg used the Ground Zero mosque controversy to tell the more than 70 percent of Americans who oppose the mosque that they were either wrong or confused. Discourse over recent arrests of jihadists in Portland and Baltimore focused on Islamist claims of FBI entrapment, rather than overdue introspection and calls for reform. Worries of Muslim victimization still rule the day.

Our national inability to discuss religious issues honestly is keeping American Muslims from having to accept the reforms needed to defeat political Islam and bring our faith into modernity. The victimization mantra feeds more Muslim isolation and radicalization.

A recent global study by the Pew Research Center showed that Muslims are aligning themselves more and more with Islamism. Of course, most major American Muslim groups, such ISNA, CAIR and MPAC, were built on some strand of that ideology. But knowing where most American Muslims fall in the spectrum of Islamism-vs.-liberalism, as King hopes to find out in his hearings, would be a key step toward counterradicalization.

The fact is, we can't go into 2011 without a discernable strategy on how to defeat Islamist radicalization. House hearings on Muslim radicalization would only be the first step toward finally crafting a US offensive against political Islam.

Again, only liberty-minded Muslims working from within Muslim communities can counter the narrative of Muslim victimization. But America needs to be unashamed of taking the side of those Muslims who advocate reform against political Islam.

In 2011, more Americans need to understand that jihadism is a natural by-product of a political Islam that is incompatible with Western secular democracies based in liberty. America is at war with theocratic Muslim despots who seek the imposition of sharia and don't believe in the equality of all before the law, blind to faith. They detest the association of religious freedom with liberty.

We need a coordinated national strategy of offense that gives Muslim youth an Islamic counternarrative, that defends liberty and that separates mosque and state.

The idea of the Islamic state must be left for history. It is time to help usher in a modern era for Islam and Muslims. Our national security depends on it.

A MUST READ!!! - Act! For America Founder Brigitte Gabriel, Rep. Ron Paul, And Fmr. Rep. Bob Barr All Speak Out Against The New TSA Scanners!

FYI - These new scanners and enhanced screening techniques are a blatant, tax payer funded, expensive violation of constitutional rights, and they do NOTHING to protect us and combat terrorism.  Please read the below post from Act! For America's Brigitte Gabriel and TAKE ACTION!  I have also posted similar information on this subject from former Congressman Bob Barr, 2008 Libertarian Presidential Nominee, and Congressman Ron Paul.  If you haven't already done so, I ask that you visit the following links, and take action there as well.

Rep. Bob Barr - Know Your Rights When Dealing With The TSA. You Can "Opt-Out."
http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/592775/5626f8f3b1/285924935/b2f24080be/

Rep. Ron Paul - Tell The TSA "Enough Is Enough!" Ask Your Elected Officials To Support H.R. 6416, The American Traveler Dignity Act.
http://dailypaul.com/node/149693

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

____________________________________________________________________________________
Act! For America's Brigitte Gabriel Speaks Out Against The New TSA Scanners


By Bob Unruh
2010 WorldNetDaily 

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=229613

Brigitte Gabriel

A terrorism expert says the invasive screening procedures demanded by the Obama-run Transportation Security Administration would do almost nothing to stop a determined terrorist because they already are experimenting with inserting explosives in a body cavity or even surgically implanting the destructive charges.

The comments come from Brigitte Gabriel, who is the founder of Act! For America, a 150,000-strong group that works to warn Americans against the dangers of militant Islam and the Muslims who follow it.

She also is a member of the board of advisers for the Intelligence Summit, and she lectures internationally on global terrorism.

Join more than 17,000 others in a petition demanding action against the intrusive airport screening procedures implemented by Janet Napolitano and send a letter to Congress, President Obama and others telling them exactly what you think about the issue.

The issue has hit a flashpoint in the last few days as newly installed TSA procedures demand that airline passengers submit to a full-body scanning machine that generates an essentially nude image of the passenger for TSA workers to see, or a full-body pat-down that includes what critics have called "groping" of private parts of the body.

"These procedures are not effective at all with terrorists," Gabriel told WND in an interview today. "If a true terrorist wants to go blow up an airplane, these machines will not detect it."

She said like drug dealers already have proven, substances hidden inside body cavities or even embedded surgically remain undetected by any or all of the TSA's procedures.

"If al-Qaida is planning against the U.S. multiple attacks in a day, in multiple airplanes, it could duplicate 9/11," she told WND. "Al-Qaida is testing inserting breast implants, stuffing breast implants with explosives."

She said a woman then could go into an airplane restroom and use a syringe similar to those used by diabetic patients to trigger an explosion that would disintegrate a modern jet.

"This is what al-Qaida is resorting to, and they're exploring surgery for men," she warned. "They want to implant explosives inside the body.

"Terrorists are conditioned and trained to blow themselves up, to become suicide bombers," she said. "They are ready to die to go to heaven to meet Allah."

It was last February that the special intelligence report Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin documented the same circumstances Gabriel described.

At that time, it was revealed in the special report that intelligence agents for Britain's MI5 service found that Muslim doctors trained at some of Britain's leading teaching hospitals had returned to their own countries to fit surgical implants filled with explosives.

The report documented that women suicide bombers recruited by al-Qaida were known to have had the explosives inserted in their breasts under techniques similar to breast enhancing surgery. The lethal explosives – usually PETN (pentaerythritol Tetrabitrate) – are inserted during the operation inside the plastic shapes. The breast is then sewn up.

The report said similar surgery has been performed on male suicide bombers. In their cases, the explosives are inserted in the appendix area or in a buttock. Both are parts of the body that diabetics use to inject themselves with their prescribed drugs.

The report at the time quoted Jonathan Evans, head of MI5, saying, "Properly inserted the implant would be virtually impossible to detect by the usual airport scanning machines. You would need to subject a suspect to a sophisticated X-ray. Given that the explosive would be inserted in a sealed plastic sachet, and would be a small amount, would make it all the more impossible to spot it with the usual body scanner."

Experts confirmed in the report that a sachet containing as little as five ounces of PETN when activated would blow "a considerable hole" in a jet airliner, guaranteeing a crash.

Gabriel, who has addressed former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, members of Congress, the Joint Forces Staff College, the U.S. Special Operations Command, the FBI and members of the British Parliament, said the only accurate way to spot terrorists is to use the profiling techniques used in Israel, which despite being a major target forterrorism, has a substantially safe airline industry.

"They know how to profile, ask the right questions. This is what it's going to take," she said. "We need to throw political correctness in the garbage where it belongs. This is the time for the public to rise up and demand public officials to come up with ways to identity the threats by name."

Gabriel, who is author of the New York Times best-seller "Because they hate: A survivor of Islamic terror warnsAmerica," and "They Must Be Stopped: Why we must defeat radical Islam and how we can do it," was a news anchor for "World News," the Arabic evening news broadcast for Middle East Television seen throughout Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. She covered the Israeli withdrawal from Central Lebanon, the Israeli Security Zone and the Palestinian uprising in the West Bank and Gaza. Her work was international in scope, bringing her in contact with world figures such as Margaret Thatcher, George H. Bush Sr., Itshak Rabin, Shimon Perez and Ariel Sharon.

She moved to the U.S. in 1989 and founded a television production company that worked with "The Today Show," "Oprah," "Dr. Phil" and others.

She told WND in Israel, terror experts are trained to watch for eye movements, breathing rates and other physical indicators that a "passenger" is more than just that.

Even something as simple as a cologne or perfume can be an indicator, she said, because terrorists essentially are preparing themselves to enter heaven.

Those factors can pinpoint a potential terrorist whether they are dark-skinned and named Mohammed or they are six-foot-tall, blue-eyed, blonde holders of American passports, she said.

The current TSA demands "insult our intelligence," she said. "It's nothing more than window dressing. … The American public must come together and revolt against these procedures. The Obama administration has failed in identifying our problem. The administration is not paying attention to terrorism."

She called out Obama even for his decisions to eradicate references such as "Islamic terrorist," "jihad" and "Islamic radicals" from the speech of the government.

"How on earth can we win against the jihadists if we are afraid to identify them by name," she said. 



http://www.wnd.com/airportscreening

The "Ground Zero" Mosque Applied For $5 Million In Federal Grant Money Set Aside To Rebuild Area After 9/11 Attacks!

FYI - The "Ground Zero" Mosque Applied For $5 Million In Federal Grant Money Set Aside To Rebuild Area After 9/11 Attacks!

Mosque Money Shocker

Also...

"Ground Zero" Mosque Iman Threatens Those Who Oppose Mosque"

Imam Feisal Rauf has publicly stated his belief that the 9/11 attacks were "justified," and he now apparently believes brave heroes like Vincent Forras have no right to use the American legal system for redress of grievances and suffering of all those who risked their lives in the attacks' aftermath.
None of this is surprising coming from a man who recently published a book in Malaysia titled "A call to prayer from the WTC debris - Islamic Da'wah in the heart of American post 9/11". According to the Qur'an, (Sura 30:25), Da'wah is the call to the dead to rise on the Day of Judgment... those who do not adhere to Sharia law are damned for their sins.

-ADY"A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution - A MUST READ!!!

Below I have compiled some more information concerning Sharia Law and the Constitution. I am thankful that we live in a country that grants us the the Freedom of Religion. I also know that there are plenty of peaceful Muslims in the United States and around the world that practice their faith and choose not to practice or adhere to Sharia Law.

As you will see in the following text, Sharia Law is NOT peaceful, it does NOT protect people's Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and it uses unfair procedures when deciding legal cases. Therefore, it is NOT conducive to the U.S. Constitution, and should NOT be considered when deciding legal cases. In my coorespondance with Mr. Awad, from C.A.I.R., (http://aregularguyontheissues.blogspot.com/2010/11/take-action-using-sharia-law-when.html) he stated that most American Muslim do not adhere to the violent and radical parts of Sharia Law. If C.A.I.R. admits that Sharia Law is violent and radical, then why do they endorse it? Why do they say it adheres to the Constitution?

Concerning Mr. Awad's point on Oklahoma's SQ775 being unessecary because of the Constitution and other federal laws, I agree. However, unfortunately, the Constitution gets attacked and circumvented by judges and officals with agendas. Instead of doing their jobs, they practice judicial activism. This has led to numerous state governments taking action as they see fit.

I hope you find the below information useful - and troubling.

-ADY

_____________________________________________________________________

Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution

Friday, June 25, 2010 A.D. | Author Tito Edwards

Is Sharia compatible with the U.S. Constitution? The simple answer is of course “no”.

But lets take a look at some aspects of Sharia Law and where it may or may not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

First, what is Sharia? Sharia refers to the sacred law of Islam. All Muslims believe Sharia is God’s law, but they have differences between themselves as to exactly what it entails. Which will be difficult to discern what to apply when, but we’ll labor along for the sake of discussion.

In Western countries, where Muslim immigration is more recent, Muslim minorities have introduced Sharia family law, for use in their own disputes. Attempts to impose Sharia have been accompanied by controversy, violence, and even warfare (Second Sudanese Civil War).

The recent incidents at the Arab International Festival have reinforced the poor image of Sharia inside the United States and its incompatibility with American culture and law.

Legal and Court Proceedings:

Sharia judicial proceedings have significant differences with other legal traditions, including those in both common law and civil law.

1. Sharia courts do not generally employ lawyers; plaintiffs and defendants represent themselves.

2. Trials are conducted solely by the judge, and there is no jury system.

3. There is no pre-trial discovery process, no cross-examination of witnesses, and no penalty of perjury (on the assumption that no witness would thus endanger his soul) Unlike common law, judges’ verdicts do not set bindingprecedents under the principle of stare decisis and unlike civil law, Sharia does not utilize formally codified statutes (these were first introduced only in the late 19th century during the decline of the Ottoman Empire, cf. mecelle).

4. Instead of precedents and codes, Sharia relies on medieval jurist’s manuals and collections of non-binding legal opinions, or fatwas, issued by religious scholars (ulama, particularly a mufti); these can be made binding for a particular case at the discretion of a judge.

5. Sharia courts’ rules of evidence also maintain a distinctive custom of prioritizing oral testimony and excluding written and documentary evidence (including forensic and circumstantial evidence), on the basis that it could be tampered with or forged.

6. A confession, an oath, or the oral testimony of a witness are the only evidence admissible in a Sharia court, written evidence is only admissible with the attestations of multiple, witnesses deemed reliable by the judge, i.e.notaries.

7. Testimony must be from at least two witnesses, and preferably free Muslim male witnesses, who are not related parties and who are of sound mind and reliable character; testimony to establish the crime of adultery, or zina must be from four direct witnesses.

8. Forensic evidence (i.e. fingerprints, ballistics, blood samples, DNA etc.) and other circumstantial evidence is likewise rejected in hudud cases in favor of eyewitnesses, a practice which can cause severe difficulties for women plaintiffs in rape cases.

9. Testimony from women is given only half the weight of men and testimony from non-Muslims may be excluded altogether (if against a Muslim).

10. In lieu of written evidence, oaths are accorded much greater weight; rather than being used simply to guarantee the truth of ensuing testimony, they are themselves used as evidence.

11. Plaintiffs lacking other evidence to support their claims may demand that defendants take an oath swearing their innocence, refusal thereof can result in a verdict for the plaintiff.

12. Sharia courts, with their tradition of pro se representation, simple rules of evidence, and absence of appeals courts, prosecutors, cross examination, complex documentary evidence and discovery proceedings, juries and voir direproceedings, circumstantial evidence, forensics, case law, standardized codes, exclusionary rules, and most of the other infrastructure of civil and common law court systems, have as a result, comparatively informal and streamlined proceedings.

13. This can provide significant increases in speed and efficiency (at the cost of the safeguards provided in secular legal systems), and can be an advantage in jurisdictions where the general court system is slow or corrupt, and where few litigants can afford lawyers. (end Wikipedia)

This is not a concise review of the difference nor similarities between U.S. Law and Sharia. It is only meant to educate us on what Sharia law is in comparison to our legal system.

***Tenets Of Shari Law***

The Reliance of the Traveller, Classic Manual of Islamic

Sacred Law is the authoritative Sunni Shariah rulebook

(available at www.Barnesandnoble.com).

- Offensive, military Jihad is a religious obligation.

- Inferior status for all non-Muslims (“dhimma”).

- Capital punishment for slandering Islam.

- Capital punishment for apostasy (leaving Islam).

- Women may not leave the house without

husbands’ permission; beating disobedient

women, polygamy, forced child marriage, and

stoning of adulterers are permitted.

- Slavery is legal.

- Lying (taqiyya) to infidels is permitted.

- Capital punishment for homosexuals and lesbians.

Sharia on family law:

• Women are eligible for only half of the inheritance of men
• Virgins may be married against their will by a father or grandfather
• Arab women may not marry non-Arab men
• Women may not leave the house without a husband’s permission
• Muslim men may marry 4 women, including Christians and Jews; Muslim women may marry Muslims
• Men may beat insubordinate wives

Sharia on Jihad and religion:

• Offensive war (military Jihad) against non-Muslims is a religious obligation
• Apostasy from Islam is punishable by death without trial
• Non-Muslims ruled by Islam must follow including discriminatory “dhimmi” taxes and laws.
• Non-Muslims may not receive Muslim charity “zakat”, but may be bribed to convert to Islam but
• Lying to infidels during Jihad, or to promote Islam, is permissible

Sharia on human rights:

• Homosexuals and lesbians must be killed
• Slavery is permitted and legitimate
• Muslim men have unlimited sexual rights over slave women, even married slaves
• Female sexual mutilation (cliterectomy) is obligatory
• Adultery is punished with death by stoning
• Women's testimony in court is worth half that of men (and is permitted only in property cases)
• Non-Muslims may not testify in Shariah courts.

***UPDATE: My Correspondence With C.A.I.R. Concerning Sharia Law And The U.S. Legal System.

FYI - A couple days ago I posted information about contacting C.A.I.R., the Council on American-Islamic Relations, concerning Sharia Law and the U.S. legal system. I ask that you review the previous post and take action by visiting the following link:

http://aregularguyontheissues.blogspot.com/2010/11/take-action-using-sharia-law-when.html

Fortunately, I received a response from Mr. Muneer Awad, Executive Director of C.A.I.R.'s Oklahoma Chapter. Mr. Awad's initial response led to an interesting dialog, and as you will read below, he made some good points that I agree with. In particular, I understand C.A.I.R.'s position as far as maintaining religious integrity while meeting the legal requirements of marriage licences, wills, business contracts, etc. I don't believe that's where the issues lie (as long as all finances are legitimate). Numerous religions, including Christianity and Judaism, do this when it comes to preparing such documents. The issue is when Sharia Law interferes with a citizen's Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties. I addressed this in my final email to him.

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Aaron Yeargan wrote:

To Whom It May Concern:

Good morning. I hope this e-mail finds you doing well. I wanted to take the time to share my concerns about CAIR's opposition to Oklahoma's SQ755. As a tolerant and open minded individual, I am glad that we live in a country that allows us all the freedoms of speech, religion, and association. These rights are granted to us by the Constitution's First Amendment and the legally upheld concept of Separation of Church and State. This ensures us that personal religious beliefs will not interfere with our legal system or dictate any legal decision.

In addition to the Constitution and federal laws, by passing SQ755, Oklahoma took steps at the state level to preserve the Separation of Church and State. Just as you admirably work for a grater respect and tolerance of Islam in the United States, you must also respect the laws, practices, and freedoms granted by our Constitution.

Respectfully,

Aaron Yeargan

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:08 PM, CAIR Oklahoma wrote:

Thank you very much for contacting us. We agree whole heartily with your first paragraph. But by suggesting that OK had to take an additional step to preserve the Separation of Church and State, you are implying that the Constitution and federal laws are not sufficient alone. Is that what you are saying?

If you can show me an example where our Constitution and federal laws were insufficient in preserving the Separation of Church and State, then I may better understand your claim. What we are saying is that the Constitution and federal laws are in fact sufficient. And that exact principle of Separation is why the state of OK cannot make a law touching on the establishment of a faith.

I respect the Constitution and am a student of that document. It is the document which makes our nation and state so great. And that document was created to prevail against majority votes. We cannot have an election question that takes a poll on which Constitutional Rights we want to deprive, and who we seek to deprive them from. The Bill of Rights was created to withstand even a 100% vote. This is why our lawsuit in fact seeks to preserve the Constitution. We are asking a judge to stop OK from changing our Constitution. This SQ is an amendment.

For the interest of a productive dialogue, can you share what practice in Sharia you find particularly troubling? Why do you need this Amendment?

Thank you again so much. I respect your opinion and do not aim to change it, but I hope to better understand it.

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Aaron Yeargan wrote:

Thank you so very much for your reply. I don't have an issue with Sharia Law. People are and should be allowed to practice their religion as they see fit, as long as it does not infringe on the rights and liberties of others. My issue is using a religious belief or guideline as a way of deciding cases within the legal system. With that, I want to make it clear that I have no issue with Islam. I would be making the same argument regardless of the religion in question.

I do see your point concerning the Constitution and federal laws being sufficient, and I do agree to an extent. However, are states not granted the ability to pass laws as they see fit under the 10th Amendment?

Is CAIR's opposition solely confined to the fact that this law is unnecessary because of the Constitution and federal laws? If so, does C.A.I.R. support the use of Shara Law in the public court system?

Again, thank you for your reply. While I know people will always have differences, I truly believe knowledge and unbiased dialog will make real peace, understanding, and tolerance reachable.

-Aaron

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 1:30 PM, CAIR Oklahoma wrote:

State's are not granted the ability to deprive a class of citizens of their Constitutional Rights...that again if we believe a law that mentions only one faith, is a violation of those Constitutional Rights. CAIR's opposition is the "State condemnation of Islam".

The reason I asked the question I did, is because if there is an aspect that we do not want to percolate in our courts, then we can forbid that certain aspect while not forbidding the consideration of the entire faith. For instance, my will today, makes reference to my religious practices and is still in compliance with the law of the land. So why should it become invalid?

Polygamy was a problem legally in the US, but courts did not ban Mormonism, they banned polygamy. That allows Mormons to keep their faith in good standing in the community, but simply bans that one practice. What one practice in Islam in America do we seek to keep out of courts. Lets find out what that is and forbid its consideration...but lets not forbid the entire faith from having equal standing in the community?

I hope that makes sense. If it helps, let me mention that Marriage COntracts, Business Contracts, Home Mortgages, and Wills can all be Sharia compliant...and are. In the US today you can find Sharia compliant documents that do not break the law and are in compliance with Public Policy. Why should they now become invalid?

Muneer

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Aaron Yeargan wrote:

Muneer,

Thank you Sir. I definitely see your point and agree with them. With the issue addressed in the below link, is this allowed under Sharia Law? If so, regardless of religious beliefs and practices, once the wife in question made the complaint, shouldn't the courts system address her constitutional rights and liberties?

http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/07/28/nj-judge-oks-rape-of-wife-by-muslim-citing-religious-belief-overturned-on-appeal/

Again, many thanks!

Aaron

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:00 AM, CAIR Oklahoma wrote:

Again Aaron, I (and I feel comfortable in saying the American Muslim community) agree with you. This case -as I know you may already know- was reversed and overturned. In legal terms, an overturned case is considered "bad law". It is not precedent and can not be used by a court. However the Appellate court's ruling that reversed this case is considered "good law", and is a precedent that other courts can consider. So what does this case actually tell us?

A person's religion cannot be used as a defense to commit an illegal act. Similar to what I described in previous emails, Sharia guides Muslims to practice their faith while mandating a respect for the laws of the land. This case in particular does not even touch on the idea of Sharia as defined by many Muslims (that is a whole issue in itself...who gave this offender the authority to define what Sharia is? How did the judge define what Sharia is? Having the courts define what my religion is or isn't is a Constitutional violation in and of itself). Sharia does not allow for domestic violence. But for argument's sake, even if a religious act did conflict with the law of the land, the law of the land reigns supreme. This is how Sharia mandates, and how our Constitution governs. The judge your link pointed to was declared to have been mistaken in his judgment and the understanding of the law. Just as Mormons are not allowed to use their religion to legalize polygamy, just as some Natives are not allowed to use their religion to legalize some intoxicants, and just as any other religion would not be able to use their faith to legalize any illegal act, Muslims too are Constitutionally prohibited from using their religion to legalize an illegal act.

But now looking at the Appellate court's decision (not the overturned decision), we see the US already has laws that govern domestic violence, and marital rape. Let us also be honest with ourselves, and admit that domestic violence, and marital rape are not exclusive to Muslims. These are problems that plague our entire society. In Oklahoma alone there have been two murders in cases of domestic violence in the past month. Neither of those involved Muslim couples, and even if they did, Sharia would not be a defense because MURDER is a crime in the United States. So if marital rape, or domestic violence were the crimes that concerned Americans (and the concern that Americans have with Muslims because of this NJ case) than I suggest us lobby our Legislatures and communities to get tougher on those issues, rather than claim to get tougher on those issues by banning an entire faith from our courts.

Again, I cannot emphasize this enough. We have a Constitution in this nation. That Constitution reigns supreme above any law. But that Constitution also provides me the protection to practice my faith so long as it is in compliance with the law. That is what our Constitution ensures, and that is what my faith mandates,

Thanks again, and I hope I did a reasonable job at explaining my point.

ps) Sorry for the late reply...one of the perks for working for a Muslims Civil Liberties organization is half-day Fridays.

TAKE ACTION - Using Sharia Law In U.S. Court Cases Is A CLEAR Constitutional Violation.

Friends,

In an attempt to uphold our Constitution and preserve Separation of Church and State, the state of Oklahoma recently passed SQ755, a constitutional amendment barring their state courts from using Islamic Sharia Law in deciding cases. C.A.I.R., the Council on American-Islamic

Relations, is challenging this new law. I ask that you take action and protect the Constitution. This is not an attack on Islam. It would be wrong for any religion to attempt to circumvent our legal system. You can contact the Oklahoma Chapter of C.A.I.R. by the following means:

• Muneer Awad, Executive Director (405)248-5853
• Nazia Khan, Opperations Coordinator (405)415-6851

Email: info@ok.cair.com

C.A.I.R.'s National Headquarters can be contacted at:

453 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.
Washington, DC 20003
Tel: (202) 488-8787
Fax: (202) 488-0833
info@cair.com

If you choose to send an e-mail, feel free to use the e-mail below, that I sent, as a template. Remember, be respectful! This is not an attack on Islam. People have the right to practice any religion they so choose, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. This is an attempt to

open a productive dialog, while voicing your concerns.

-ADY

_____________________________________________________________________

To Whom It May Concern:

Good morning. I hope this e-mail finds you doing well. I wanted to take the time to share my concerns about CAIR's opposition to Oklahoma's SQ755. As a tolerant and open minded individual, I am glad that we live in a country that allows us all the freedoms of speech, religion, and association. These rights are granted to us by the Constitution's First Amendment and the legally upheld concept of Separation of Church and State. This ensures us that personal religious beliefs will not interfere with our legal system or dictate any legal decision.

In addition to the Constitution and federal laws, by passing SQ755, Oklahoma took steps at the state level to preserve the Separation of Church and State. Just as you admirably work for a grater respect and tolerance of Islam in the United States, you must also respect the laws, practices, and freedoms granted by our Constitution.

Respectfully,

Aaron Yeargan

Sharia Law Is A Clear Constitutional Violation of Free Speech and Separation of Church and State!

Please visit the below link and take action!

-ADY

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/help-stop-sharia-in-the-west-support-elisabeth-sabbaditsch-wolf-video/

The Threat of Sharia Law

This is why the Separation of Church and State is so important! Sharia law must be stopped!

-ADY
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

New Law Protects Free Speech from Foreign Courts.

New Law Protects Free Speech from Foreign Courts
The Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage or SPEECH Act, passed by both the House and Senate and awaiting President Obama’s signature, prevents lawsuits brought against American writers in foreign courts from limiting free speech in America. “It protects authors, journalists, and publishers by preventing U.S. federal courts from acknowledging or enforcing a judgment in a foreign libel suit that goes against the First Amendment... The bill also empowers authors and publishers to clear their names by showing that a foreign judgment is not in line with American law, even when the foreign plaintiff has not tried to enforce the judgment in the United States.”



The Epoch Times
August 5, 2010
By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld
Washington, D.C.

A bill to protect authors, journalists, and publishers from “libel tourism” recently passed both houses of Congress. The bill, known as the SPEECH Act, prevents lawsuits brought against American writers in foreign courts from limiting free speech in America. The Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage or SPEECH Act passed the Senate and House in July.

Libel tourism refers to bringing a defamation lawsuit in a foreign country that is unrelated to the published material and where protection of free speech is weaker than in the United States. The goal is usually to silence or intimidate the journalist or author. Recent defamation lawsuits in the U.K. and Canada brought against American authors spurred legislators to take action.

Director of the American Center for Democracy Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, who documents and publishes terrorist organization’s funding sources, has been campaigning for protection from the judgments of foreign courts. After she exposed how Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz funded al-Qaeda, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations in her 2003 book "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It," Mahfouz sued her for libel in London.

In a piece at her center’s website, Ehrenfeld explains she did not acknowledge the British court's jurisdiction over her because she does not live in the U.K and her book was not published or marketed there. When she did not show, the English court ruled against her by default, fined her, and ordered her to apologize, retract her statements, and cover Mahfouz's legal fees.

Ehrenfeld countersued Mahfouz in New York to prevent the British court’s judgment from being enforced. But because of the court’s lack of jurisdiction over Mahfouz, the court dismissed her case. So the New York State Legislature acted quickly to pass a law giving New York courts jurisdiction over foreign libel plaintiffs who sue New York authors and publishers abroad.

Ehrenfeld continued her campaign and several states passed laws to protect their residents from defamation judgments by foreign courts. She was also a key force behind federal legislation.

The Senate bill, cosponsored by Senate judiciary committee chairman and ranking member Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), passed the Senate on July 19.

“Libel tourism ... can cause Americans to defer to the country with the most chilling and restrictive free speech standard, to determine what they can write or publish. This undermines our First Amendment,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy in a statement.

The bill, which passed the House for a second time July 27, protects authors, journalists, and publishers by preventing U.S. federal courts from acknowledging or enforcing a judgment in a foreign libel suit that goes against the First Amendment.

“Our First Amendment rights are among the most fundamental principles laid out in the Constitution. It is vital we ensure that these rights are never undermined by foreign judgments,” said House bill sponsor Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), in a statement after the bill passed the House.

The bill also empowers authors and publishers to clear their names by showing that a foreign judgment is not in line with American law, even when the foreign plaintiff has not tried to enforce the judgment in the United States.

After passing the House, the bill was sent to the president and is awaiting Obama’s signature.