Just like Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz, Republican Governor Sam Brownback had a feeling he was not in Kansas anymore. At least not the Kansas that he once knew. His Sunflower State was teeming with unfamiliar creatures and though not tin-men or scarecrows or wicked witches, they were nonetheless outsiders and were apparently so unsettling that a law was required to prevent their influence: They were Muslims.
Last Friday, Brownback signed a bill prohibiting local courts from relying on sharia, or Islamic law, as well as other non-U.S. laws when making decisions. The fact that such a thing had never occurred in the Midwestern wheat capital did not matter. The bill was approved in a landslide vote: 33-1 in the Senate and 120-0 in the House.
Like other similar bills in 20 states, including recently enacted laws in Arizona, Louisiana and Tennessee, the blueprint for the controversial Kansas legislation comes from a familiar and influential source: a growing right-wing network of anti-Muslim fear mongers. They are the Islamophobia industry and laws such as this are hallmark achievements in their quest to frighten the American population about a minority group they view with great suspicion and scorn.
The deluge of anti-Muslim legislation that has unnecessarily clogged the corridors of power (and the minds of otherwise rational politicians) can be traced back to David Yerushalmi, a 57-year-old Hasidic Jew with a library's worth of controversial statements about African Americans, fellow Jews and immigrants. A shadow agent of this fear industry, Yerushalmi has worked behind the scenes since 2001 to ratchet up an image of Islam and Muslims that is heavy on sensationalism and gore and short on context and fact. It was his organization, the Society of Americans for National Existence (with the ironic acronym SANE) that once suggested that the U.S government should declare a war on the Muslim community, that Muslims should not be granted entry visas to the U.S., and that practicing Islam should be a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
The Kansas law, and the majority of the bills that were brought before state congresses, are based on a single piece of blueprint legislation crafted by Yerushalmi titled "American Laws for American Courts." Along with former Reagan official Frank Gaffney, who is famous for suggesting that Barack Obama is a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Yerushalmi marketed the plan to lawmakers throughout the country, tapping into Tea Party bases and Republican activist groups such as ACT For America that welcomed the opportunity to institutionalize discrimination in their respective states.
In drumming up support for Kansas's ban, bloggers Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller spread the word to their online bases through "Action Alerts" that warned of "Islamic supremacists" who were "seeking to impose the Sharia on non-Muslims." They urged their supporters to "flood [Brownback's] Twitter" and "jam his phones" with strong support for the bill.
Spencer and Geller co-founded Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA) in 2010, an American offshoot of Stop the Islamization of Europe (SIOE), a hate group that the European Union calls a "neo-Nazi organization." They also led the protests in 2010 to the Park51 Community Center (remember the Ground Zero Mosque?) in New York City. Yerushalmi and Gaffney serve as their legal counsel. When the Kansas bill was signed, Geller reacted with her usual flamboyance: "U Da Best," she wrote. "What a disaster defeat for Hamas-CAIR," she added.
Supporters of the Kansas law point to the fact that it does not explicitly mention sharia and that it only refers to "foreign legal codes." But it is clear from the people who are behind this newest manifestation of state-sanctioned Islamophobia that the statute is hardly intended to be an equal opportunity regulator. In fact, after court's ruled last year that Oklahoma's sharia ban violated the establishment clause of the Constitution's First Amendment, Yerushalmi took note of the bill's language and wiped out language that could be interpreted as targeting Muslims specifically. This growing network operates on slyness and persistence.
The Islamophobia industry is a dangerous and influential group. They have successfully attached anti-Muslim sentiment to the banner of right-wing populism and it is fast becoming identical to anti-Semitism and other such structural racisms that have the potential to spill out into the ghastly displays of violence. The Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik, for example, listed Spencer, Geller and Gaffney multiple times in the manifesto that served as a guidebook for his massacre in July 2011. This network clings to the notion that foreign is bad and that Muslims are not a natural part of America's national fabric. They believe that they must not only be chastised and harassed but that local government's should discriminate against them on the basis of their religion and foreign systems of order that the everyday, law-abiding, peace-loving Muslims of America don't even follow to begin with.
There is no sharia law in Kansas. There is no sharia law anywhere in the United States. What there is, though, is a hateful band of anti-pluralists who take great joy (and make great money) in cleaving society into various fragments that war with one another. It is time to shine a bright and damning light on the Islamophobia industry.
Nathan Lean is the Editor-In-Chief of AslanMedia.com. He is the co-author of 'Iran, Israel, and the United States' (2010) and the author of 'The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims.' Visit him online at www.nathanlean.com and follow him on Twitter at @nathanlean.
Follow Nathan Lean on Twitter: www.twitter.com/nathanlean
covert.ias3.com/expose
Law applies to such matters as family law? Yes, and here there is a difference for what applies to Muslim and what applies to the rest of us. Polygamy, for example is NOT ALLOWED in the U.S., and other, formerly polygamist, have had to buckle under in that respect, such as Mormons. It is not only of importance to how a family actually lives, and where, but to divorce laws, custody laws and regulations, visiting rights, and more.
Muslim men may live in apartment complexes with two or more families, one on each floor! Fights break out. The man kills his wife, or one of his children, because he is enraged, or the person *brought shame on him* - because of his own actions! - and then he demands that Islamic Law be applied, as he sees that Law. He has too many children and can not support them, or his four wives, and they all become dependent on transfer payments. It is not that the West is unfriendly, we just can not afford it, the cost, and the murder and mayhem.
.
http://shariahinamericancourts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Sharia_Law_And_American_State_Courts_1.4_06212011.pdf
Let's look at the New Jersey case "S.D. v. M.J.R."
In this case a trial court judge wrongly and improperly considered Shariah law in his ruling, after hearing testimony on Shariah law from an imam. The trial court denied the woman a restraining order against her abusive ex-husband on the grounds that Shariah made his conduct excusable.
The case is discussed here:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/02/the-real-impact-of-sharia-law-in-america/
Here is the opinion of the appellate court, which discusses (and reverses) the trial court ruling:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17690081954141610726
SB79 will prevent such wrongful and improper rulings as the trial court made in this case.
SB79 does not "chastise Muslims" as Lean wants to pretend. It actually serves to PROTECT American women and children whose full protection under the law is endangered by Shariah, which does not treat women equally with men or consider the best interests of children.
-----------------------------
The author admits that no one would be affected by the law, since "everyday, law-abiding, peace-loving Muslims of America don't even follow [Shariah] to begin with."
So, the issue reduces to "chastisement and harassment." The most extreme figures cited in regard to support for Shariah among Muslims in a Western country is 40% in UK. And this is regarded as the worst crisis by Islamonauseous like myself. But, that means 60% reject it in the UK in spite of the pressure they are in.
Why shouldn't we stand with the majority, and actually begin to convince them to join the efforts at opposing the ideology that they left behind, and keep their children out of the influence of Islamists?
The US Muslim population has a large number of Iranians, Arabs and Indians who are quite aware of the realities of Shariah, and could support a ban on it.
Whether or not they say it, every Muslim Brotherhood related organization would certainly want as much Shariah as they can get in the US.
http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120604-42953.html
Under the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), in force since 1925, and similar state-level arbitration codes, private persons (natural as well as legal) can legally agree that disputes between them arising from or relating to their private contractual relationships will be decided exclusively (and largely without appeal rights) by a private arbitrator or arbitral panel.
http://schulzkelaw.com/is-sharia-law-now-enforceable-in-the-united-states/
Kansas bill:
http://www.kansascitypost.com/index.php?sid/205911577/scat/cc264e50ceab3697
"Any court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law...
No where is Sharia, Muslim or Islam ever mentioned in Kansas' bill.
Come on, people - isn't there enough REAL stuff happening that you don't have to sit around and drum up complete lies?
Do you normally read pieces before you comment on them? If not, I'd recommend that you start.
- So how would SB79 "discriminate against them on the basis of their religion and foreign systems of order" without mentioning any religion or any foreign legal code?
You want people to believe that somehow SB79 discriminates against Muslims.
"Tripe" is exactly right.
And you stated that "Supporters of the Kansas law point to the fact that it does not explicitly mention sharia and that it only refers to "foreign legal codes."
Similarly some pretty despicable people are against islamic ideology. I also do not like it. This doesn't mean I am a bigot. I disagree with someone's views, and for a good reason. This doesn't make me racist, or even right winged. Most liberals don't want the christian religion influencing their law - so when a person sues their school for violating the establishment clause for having a state organization hold a christian prayer does that make them a christianiphobe? a racist? No, that's a ridiculous notion.
What you're attempting to do here is group the people who have criticism of islam to people who have other despicable qualities. It's intellectually dishonest.
Do I want muslims building more mosques? No, I don't want christians building churches either. But I understand they're free, and should be free to do so. I also am free to think they are wrong.
___________________
What you are saying is you don't criticize people for disagreeing with Islamic teachings, but those who have a "TRACK RECORD of disagreeing with Islamic teachings."
No one I know has said anything about ALL Muslims. Besides, everyone knows that a certain group of people have a propensity to feel "antagonized, harassed, insulted and trashed" and then pretend to be outraged on behalf of ALL Muslims. It is they who are telling ALL Muslims that if Spencer, Geller, et al. are opposing Islamic supremacist messages from CAIR, MSA and other groups, then they are against ALL Muslims. This is exactly how Islam has been highjacked for political purposes throughout history.
Omar Bakri: Yes.
Wafa Sultan: You want to dictate to the native inhabitants of the country what they can do?
Omar Bakri: I invite them, and if they accept the command of Allah, then they may do so. If they don’t accept, and kick me out of the country, then we will fight against them. The relationship between us is either a pact of belief in Allah, or a peace treaty, or war. The general rule is that the blood and property of non-Muslims are permissible for us. Their blood and property are not inviolable. It is in their interest to have a peace treaty or dhimmi pact with me... The dhimmi pact falls under the Islamic shari'ah, but the peace treaty does not subject you to the shari'ah. That’s the way it is. Either you accept it, or we live in a state of war. The general rule is that the blood and property of infidels are permissible for Muslims. The Prophet Muhammad even said, “I was sent to fight against the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah, and I am the apostle of Allah.”
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Shaykh_Omar_Bakri_on_Human_Right_under_Shariah
I have no idea why you think a statement could not be meaningful if it were made by an apostate. That makes no sense at all.