It is easy to get confused by the following mail. Where a person from "Muslim chronicle??" saying awful things about CAIR. The "Fun" part of this clown [ Tarek Fatah] is he uses the name "Muslim" but works against "All things Islamic". Mr. Tarek Fatah is an interesting character who claims to be "Secular-Muslim". What the heck is it? It is an oxymoron. One can chose to be "Secular" or claim to be Muslim. All "Practicing"Muslims need to agree on foundations of Islam.
Tarek used to be a "Leftist radical" but chose to work in Saudi Arabia and settled in Canada [ Medina of Capitalism--if you consider US the Mecca]. His life choices tells us he is an opportunist and does not practice anything he actually believes in.
This man supports "Gay rights" in one hand and also speaks for Islam when it brings him money and fame. Now a days speaking against Islam can be good business. There are Jewish people like him, who speaks about holocaust in everything and abuse it when it suits them.
I have respect for people who speaks for gays but the same person should not speak for any Abrahamic faiths. These three faith traditions [ Judaism, Christianity and Islam] do not support Gay [ Sodomy] life style.
CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations) has been listed by the US Justice Department as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the Texas Terror Trial where all accused were convicted on all charges.
>>>>> Another fine example of this hypocrite is citing CAIR as "Co-conspirator" in some terror trial. Albeit CAIR has been released of these charges. Here is an excerpt...
During the appeal, the Justice Department took the position that it never actually labeled NAIT and the others on the list as definite "co-conspirators," ................
[ Source: Judge: Feds violated U.S.]
Actually CAIR is a civil rights organization for Muslims in north America [ Mainly the US and Canada]. There are similar rights groups for Jewish and African-Americans as well.
Anyone who read the main article can see what a democratic lawmaker saw
This was election season and fanatic right wingers needed to play the "Islam card" one more time to fool good people of Oklahoma. Western people have been fed good dose of "Anti-islamic" propaganda for many hundred years.[ Source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LK10Ak04.html]
Therefore, Islam and communists/socialists are easy targets for western politicians. Anytime their popularity rating goes down, they talk against Islam. George Bush made it to an art form. A clear example of this "Scare tactic" was used against the president of USA as well. Since Republicans could not use enough policy matters against President Obama, they called him a Muslim for no reason.
Anyone who has any back ground of US laws know very well that, US laws are based on "Old English common laws" like the laws of the Indian sub-continent. As America was established by Christians, Islamic laws never had any place in it. Muslim population of Oklahoma is next to nothing. There is no logical reason to worry about it. This is a case for US constitutional lawyers and nothing more. The US runs on its constitution and as far as I understand such absurd cases has no merit whatsoever.
The only thing CAIR wanted to do is not stop abuse of Islam by politicians for political purpose. Only violent anti-Islamic and fanatic Zionist organizations talks about CAIR and "Muslim Brotherhood" at the same time. As fair minded people, we have to highlight these "Intellectual prostitutes", so they cease to deceive good hearted Muslims and non-Muslims everywhere.
As Muslims it is our duty to oppose unnecessary violence and oppressions against innocent. At the same time we need to be aware of such "Opportunistic" people, who will follow the "Money-god" ( Described as Thagud in the Qur'an) and do anything to make some "quick money". It is important we have people with dignity, honor and principle speaking on our behalf. Otherwise Muslims and non-Muslims will continue to be deceived by such characters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----Aristotle
From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 3:33 am
Subject: [ALOCHONA] FW: Islamist group sues State of Oklahoma for banning Sharia Law by Tarek Fatah on Tues
muslimchronicle@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 15:19:35 -0500
Subject: Islamist group sues State of Oklahoma for banning Sharia Law by Tarek Fatah on Tues
__._,_.___
[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Re: [ALOCHONA] FW: Islamist group sues State of Oklahoma for banning Sharia Law by Tarek Fatah on Tues
Alochoks,
emocratic Sen. Richard Lerblance, one of two state senators to vote against the measure, called it "a scare tactic."
"They call it 'Save Our State.' I don't know what we're saving it from," he said. "We have yet to have any court do anything based on Shariah law."
Bottom line is Oklahoma is a backward Midwestern state [ Established around 1912] and have never ruled anything remotely based on "Shariah Law".
Mr. Sykes said he wanted to protect the Oklahoma judiciary from the influence of "Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan and, I'm sure, Sonia Sotomayor, given her political leanings," who he believed were inclined to rely on international law.
Mr. Sykes is a "Conservative" from Oklahoma. He cited three characters and commented on supreme court judges that can be considered as an "Insult"/contempt of US Supreme court. Those who do not know may find it interesting that, US court can block wished of the US president if it finds it as "Unconstitutional". Here Mr. Sykes depicts Sonia Sotomayor as someone who "Inclined to rely on international law" just because she is a first generation American [ Daughter of an immigrant], who does not have an "All American name". He picks on Ruth Bader Ginsburg because she is liberal, Jewish and a woman. Elena Kegan was "Guilty" of being a woman!!
Such male chauvinistic attitudes are common in new right-wing fanatics. Albeit this law maker from Oklahoma could be sued on these grounds. I bet you a million dollars he would not comment on Biblical laws in the same way. If he did, he would be kicked out of his seat the very next day [ Oklahoma is also known as part of the "Bible belt" of the USA]The Sharia laws are not much different than laws of the Bible!!
The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
-----Original Message-----
Freinds,
If there was any doubt about the agenda of CAIR and other Islamist groups in the USA and Canada, it was laid bare in Oklahoma yestreday when CAIR went to court to block the banning of sharia law in that state.
CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations) has been listed by the US Justice Department as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the Texas Terror Trial where all accused were convicted on all charges. Despite that, it continues to act as if it represents the will of US Muslims. Instead CAIR has created huge hurdles for American and Canadian Muslims as it pursues the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood in bringing Sharia law to the West. In 2005 they supported the introduction of Sharia law in Ontario, but were challenged by the Muslim Canadian Congress and were defeated in that attempt.
Voters in Oklahoma voted overwhelmingly to reject sharia law, yet CAIR has the audacity to go to court and defy the verdict of the people. Even if they win in the court of law, Muslim will lose big time in the court of public opinion. This promises to be the next fiasco created by Islamists in the USA after the Gropund-Zero Mosque. Unfortunately, there are few, if any Muslims in US who are willing to call the bluff of CAIR and expose them for who they are: mouthpiece of Islamism in North America.
Read and reflect.
Tarek
-------------
November 9, 2010
CAIR sues Oklahoma over Shariah Ban
By JESS BRAVIN
The Wall Street Journal
A Muslim activist in Oklahoma City filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging a voter-approved measure that bars Oklahoma state judges from considering Shariah, the Islamic religious code based on the Koran and the Prophet Mohammed's teachings, in formulating rulings.
State Question 755, which passed Tuesday with 70% of the vote, declares "the legal precepts of other nations or cultures" off-limits to Oklahoma courts. "Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law," it reads.
The suit, filed by Muneer Awad, director of the state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, asks the federal district court to block officials from certifying the referendum. Mr. Awad says the measure violates the First Amendment, which protects "free exercise" of religion and prohibits official "establishment of religion." A hearing was set for Monday.
The complaint alleges Oklahoma has singled out Islam for "profound stigma," consigning Muslims such as Mr. Awad "to an ineffectual position within the political community."
Oklahoma's Legislature voted overwhelmingly to place the Save Our State Amendment before voters. A co-sponsor, state Sen. Anthony Sykes, denied it sought to stigmatize Muslims. "We're not trying to send any sort of message here," said Mr. Sykes, a Republican.
Rather, he said, Oklahomans wanted to insulate their judiciary from un-American influences. While no Oklahoma court ever has cited Shariah law, "we are on a slippery slope," he said.
Democratic Sen. Richard Lerblance, one of two state senators to vote against the measure, called it "a scare tactic."
"They call it 'Save Our State.' I don't know what we're saving it from," he said. "We have yet to have any court do anything based on Shariah law."
Several states have considered rules that restrict judges from making decisions that take into account foreign or international legal materials, said William Raftery, a research analyst with the National Center for State Courts in Williamsburg, Va. Only Oklahoma's measure singles out a particular religious tradition, he said, though a proposal in Arizona lists Shariah along with canon law, Jewish law and karma, a conception of fate in Hindu and Buddhist traditions.
Mr. Sykes and other conservatives who perceive a threat from Islamic law cite a 2009 case in which a New Jersey judge declined to issue a restraining order against a Moroccan man who forced sex on his unwilling wife.
Among other reasons, the judge said the husband's belief that his wife must submit to sex "was consistent with his [religious] practices." An appeals court reversed the judge and ordered that a restraining order be issued, citing a Supreme Court decision rejecting a Mormon's claim that his faith exempted him from an anti-bigamy statute.
"To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself," Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote.
Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are binding on all state and federal courts, and no justice of the Supreme Court ever has asserted he or she is bound by any authority other than the U.S. Constitution.
However, beginning in 1791, when Chief Justice John Jay adopted English rules for the new U.S. Supreme Court, American judges occasionally have examined how foreign courts address similar legal problems.
For instance, in a 1997 decision concerning Washington state's ban on assisted suicide, Chief Justice William Rehnquist cited court decisions from Australia, Britain, Canada, Colombia and New Zealand.
Mr. Sykes said he wanted to protect the Oklahoma judiciary from the influence of "Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan and, I'm sure, Sonia Sotomayor, given her political leanings," who he believed were inclined to rely on international law.
Justice Ginsburg responded to similar criticism in a July speech to the International Academy of Comparative Law, at American University. She said foreign opinions "are not authoritative; they set no binding precedent for the U.S. judge. But they can add to the store of knowledge relevant to the solution of trying questions."
She cited Justice Robert Jackson's 1952 concurrence that the president lacked authority to seize steel mills during wartime. Justice Jackson "pointed to features of the Weimar Constitution in Germany that allowed Adolf Hitler to assume dictatorial powers. Even in wartime, Jackson concluded, the U.S. president could not seize private property."
University of Oklahoma law professor Joseph Thai said that earlier this year, the state legislature commissioned "a monument to the laws of another religion"--the Ten Commandments--for the state Capitol.
"Oklahoma's apparent approval of the legal traditions of a majority religion and attempt to suppress the legal traditions of a minority religion" may conflict with the Constitution's requirement that government treat all religions equally, Mr. Thai said.
He said the new state law may forbid Oklahoma judges from citing the Ten Commandments, because they are "international in origin."
Corrections & Amplifications Several states have considered rules that restrict judges from making decisions that take into account foreign or international legal materials, said William Raftery. An earlier version of this story said several states have adopted the rules and misspelled Mr. Raftery's name as Raferty.
Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com
------
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional