Detroit: Opposing Sharia is 'Racism at its Core'

Muslims denounce bill to ban ‘foreign laws’

Of course, of course. ‘Racism’ is the last straw for the intellectually bankrupt. But because the race card still works for some they believe if they just yell  loud enough some fool might yield.

But  a.) Islam is not a race, b.) Muslim spokesmen keep telling us that they have no intention to ever impose sharia on us, and  c.) any opposition to sharia will meet the wrath of Allah, which includes hellfire, law-fare, jihad and if necessary religiously mandated murder.

Community leaders call state rep’s plan divisive, unnecessary–  Oralandar Brand-Williams – The Detroit News

 State Rep. Rashida Tlaib, right, denounces a plan to keep courts from considering foreign laws as Dawud Walid of CAIR-Michigan, left; state Rep. Harvey Santana; Mary Bejian of the ACLU of Michigan; and Jonathan Contreras of Alliance for Immigrants Rights & Reform look on.

Detroit —Opposition is mounting among Muslims against pending legislation that would ban Michigan courts from considering “foreign laws” — including Sharia, or Islamic law.

Muslim and community leaders gathered Tuesday in Midtown to denounce legislation from state Rep. Dave Agema, R-Grandville, as divisive, unnecessary and mean-spirited.

“This plan goes against our country’s core values of accepting people from all races and walks of life,” said state Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit, who is Muslim. “We simply cannot move forward with this plan.

“It’s racism at its core.”

Similar measures are under consideration in 25 other state legislatures, and supporters say the protections are needed. The Michigan bill doesn’t mention Sharia, but watchdog groups say they’ve identified 50 cases nationwide that could be influenced by the religious rules. Most involved divorce or child custody.

Another sponsor of the Michigan bill, Rep. Martin Knollenberg, R-Troy, said the legislation is necessary because “we shouldn’t allow other laws to usurp the state constitution.”

He scoffed at critics who called the bill racist: “Where does it say (in the bill) it’s anti-Muslim?”

Agema last week called the accusations of bigotry “hogwash.”

A House committee has yet to take up discussion of the bill. The Council of American-Islamic Relations’ Michigan chapter announced Tuesday it would sue if it becomes law. Gov. Rick Snyder’s office hasn’t done an analysis of the measure, said his spokeswoman, Geralyn Lasher.

“We don’t know if this is an issue taking place or whether there is a need” for a law, she said.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee also encouraged members Tuesday to contact their state representatives and urge them to oppose the bill.

You probably didn’t know that sharia is already being applied by U.S. judges:


Below are ten cases of American Muslim Families who have encountered conflicts between the equal protection under the Constitution they should have received, and legal discrimination imposed on them by Shariah law – in American Courts   (excerpted from“Shariah Law and American State Courts“).
In cases 1-3, the Appellate Courts upheld Shariah law; in cases 4-7, the  Trial Courts upheld Shariah, but the Appellate Courts reversed (protecting the litigant’s constitutional rights); in cases 8-10, both Trial and Appellate Courts rejected the attempts to enforce Shariah law.
Ten American Families and Shariah in American State Courts
  1. Joohi Q. Hosain (FKA Malik) V. Anwar Malik, ( ), Shariah law of Pakistan, Maryland, 1996: Trial and Appellate Courts upheld foreign Shariah law and denied mother custody.  She lost custody because going to custody hearing in Pakistan would have risked prison, torture or execution.
  2. Laila Adeeb Sawaya Malak v. Abdul Latif Malak ( ), Shariah law of Lebanon/UAE, California, 1986: Appellate Court upheld foreign Shariah law and denied mother custody, reversing Trial Court.
  3. Parveen Chaudry v. M. Hanif Chaudry, M.D., ( ), Shariah law of Pakistan, New Jersey, 1978: Appellate Court upheld foreign Shariah law, overturned Trial Court.  Wife denied support and child support and division of property; prenuptial agreement signed by parents giving her only $1,500 from marriage upheld by Appellate Court.
  4. In re the Custody Of R., minor child. Dato Paduka Noordin v. Datin Laila Abdulla, ( , Shariah law of Philippines, Washington, 1997: Trial Court upheld foreign Shariah law of Philippines (which has parallel Shariah court system) granting father custody; Appellate Court reverses, allowing mother to contest Philippines Shariah court custody decision.
  5. S.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.J.R., ( ), Shariah law of Morocco, New Jersey, 2010: Pregnant mother is beaten and raped by her husband, Trial Court refuses restraining order citing foreign Shariah law, Appellate court reverses and  grants restraining order.
  6. Pamela Tazziz VS. Ismail Tazziz ( ), Shariah law of Israel, Massachusetts, 1988: Trial Court upheld foreign Shariah law of Israel (which has parallel Shariah court system ) requiring mother of four  children to bring family to Shariah hearing; Appellate Court reversed.
  7. Saida Banu Tarikonda, , v. Bade Saheb Pinjari ( ), Shariah law of India, Michigan, 2009: The Trial Court accepted a Talaq divorce (the husband says “I divorce you” three times, no prior notice to wife required). The Appellate Court reversed.
  8. Irfan Aleem v. Farah Aleem  ( ), Shariah law of Pakistan, Maryland, 2007: Trial Court rejected argument permitting a foreign Shariah law Talaq divorce to prevent community division of property; Appellate Court upheld.
  9. Magda Sobhy Ahmed Amin v. Abdelrahman Sayed Bakhaty ( ), Shariah law of Egypt and Lebanon, Louisiana, 2001: Mother convicted under foreign Shariah law of Egypt for leaving Egypt with child for U.S. without husband’s permission;  Under Egyptian Shariah law, father files for divorce and custody; Trial Court and Appellate court do not grant comity.
  10. Bita Donboli, Respondent, and Nader Donboli ( ),Shariah law of Iran, Washington, 2005: Mother is dual citizen of U.S. and Iran, alleges beatings, not allowed to leave Iran with son without husband permission, and refuses to comply with foreign Iranian Shariah law custody decree.  Trial and Appellate Courts uphold her position.

6 thoughts on “Detroit: Opposing Sharia is 'Racism at its Core'”

  1. Fitzgerald’s Prayer

    Stop, for god’s sake stop, importing trouble—and Muslim immigrants, as a whole, necessarily mean trouble, in all lands where the political and legal institutions, and social arrangements, are flatly contradicted by the Shari’a. Muslims are obligated to change or tear down those institutions, in order to remove all “obstacles to Islam.” It is not special or individual malice that prompts that attitude. That is their duty, a central duty. Why not come to fully and soberly understand that duty, and out of a minimal sense of self-preservation, cease to import those into our lands (America, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Australia, and every other place that has so generously admitted, under a twisted definitiion of “refugees,” people who do not, and can not, wish our ways or institutions or constitutions well.

    Hugh Fitzgerald

  2. I have faith they won’t overcome, because of good people like you who spread the word. God bless you.

  3. If they want Shari’a, there are plenty of wonderful countries where its already being practiced and you’re entirely free to move to one of them and have all the Halal you can eat.

  4. Oh I wish they’d just all go back to where they came from. But then it’s a stinking hell hole and they’d prefer to be here. Of course our Dear Leader is bringing more of these nut cases in to support him.

Comments are closed.