Oklahoma Lawsuit: "can't we just have a tiny bit of sharia?'

Preempting sharia gives the soldiers of Allah and their useful idiots hissy fits:

Ban of Islamic Law in Oklahoma Renders a Quick Lawsuit

Opponents of the law see gaping constitutional problems with it. A lawsuit was filed Thursday in Oklahoma City federal court challenging the legality of the measure. Click here for the complaint, filed by the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); here for the news release on CAIR’s plans.

The plaintiff, CAIR executive director Muneer Awad, said the law violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, adding that it targets a particular religion. “Disfavoring Islam, or any religion, is a violation of the First Amendment,” Awad said. “Second, it renders all international treaties invalid in our courts.” (Wall Street Journal)

In wake of Oklahoma anti-Sharia vote, Muslims having a hard time getting their story straight

Asma Uddin argues here that the idea of Sharia coming to Oklahoma is absurd on its face, and so no anti-Sharia law is needed. But if that is true, then why is Hamas-linked CAIR bothering to go to the trouble and expense of suing to block the law? After all, a law against a non-existent threat may be silly, but if there is no need for the law in the first place, there is no need to sue to overturn it.

Also, note that Uddin speaks as if Oklahoma had outlawed Sharia as a matter of voluntary private arbitration. That is actually off the point, since the use of Sharia provisions in private arbitration doesn’t constitute the use of a law other than American law to legislate for Americans, which is what the Oklahoma anti-Sharia measure is all about.

“Caliphate on the Range? The Shariah Precedent in American Courts,” by Asma Uddin in the Huffington Post, November 6, via JW:

In wake of anti-Sharia vote, Muslims in Oklahoma claim victim status

Continue reading Oklahoma Lawsuit: "can't we just have a tiny bit of sharia?'

Compo Jihad: Tariq Ramadan wants €75,000 for wrongful dismissal

Pseudo scholar Tariq Ramadan, sacked by Rotterdam city council last year, is asking for €75,000 compensation for wrongful dismissal.

The chances are good, as we can see here:

Dutch News

Ramadan lost his job as city integration adviser after officials discovered he presented a tv show for a broadcast company financed by Iran. The city said this could not be combined with his other roles.

Erasmus University also ended his contract as a visiting professor.

Court hearings over the compensation claim began on Monday. Ramadan claims the sacking damaged “his reputation as an Islamic scholar.”

What reputation? That he is a propagandist for the Muslim Brotherhood?

It is scandalous that this creep could get a chair in any university in the West.

Obama wants to protect our Saudi “friends” — even when they fund our jihadi enemies

Documents link Saudi royalty to terrorists


Jihad Presidency Update:

“Sovereign Immunity or Cover-Up?: Obama wants to protect our Saudi “friends” — even when they fund our jihadi enemies,” by David Yerushalmi in National Review, June 24 via JW:

Full disclosure: I have a pony in this race. I am an American and, as an attorney, I am an officer of the court. I make this disclosure in the light of an amicus curiae brief recently filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by the Obama-Holder Department of Justice. The brief pertains to the mammoth case that came to the Supreme Court via the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (New York) called In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The Supreme Court is currently pondering whether the case merits its review.


In its friend-of-the-court brief, the Justice Department has argued, almost unimaginably, that the Supreme Court should not review the Second Circuit’s ruling that the victims of 9/11 and their families may not sue the Saudi government or, more importantly, the individual Saudi princes who personally (not as government actors) gave money to Muslim charities they knew would be funding al-Qaeda’s jihad against America. […]

The question now crying out to be asked: How far will the Obama administration go to prevent private plaintiffs from exposing the quite personal ties between our Saudi “friends” — who love to host U.S. presidents bearing words of praise — and our jihadi enemies fighting to impose the rule of sharia around the world?

Read it all.

Jihad Watch Deutschland: "Guilty Because Obama Holds the Same Views"

Update: District court of Gelsenkirchen stays “Jihad Watch Deutschland” lawsuit

* The Law is an Ass: “Guilty because of Obama!”

Just in from Fred Alan Medforth

The district court of Gelsenkirchen. stays the “Jihad Watch Deutschland” lawsuit because of so-called low guilt. The fact that JWD-operator Fred Alan Medforth must pay, nevertheless, 300 € is because of Mr Barak Obama. Such lawsuits are ordinarily stayed without payment.

But the judge stated that the political views of the German pro-Hamas and pro-Hizbollah politician and MP, Niels Annen (Social Democratic Party), are not so bad because Obama represents the same politics.

 Therefore, the criticism of Annens politics was interpreted by the judge as insults towards this guy. Thank you, Obama !

French Yuman Rites Organization Sues Wilders

France: Human rights organization sues Wilders


Telling the truth about Islam is “hate-speech”- and since only Muslims are human -unbelievers are the ‘vilest of creatures’ 98:6 Koran, so we must assume that this ‘Yuman Rites Org.’ applies human rights to Muslims only, as we have seen in so many other cases. Seems to be another Muslim front:

A French human rights organization is summoning Geert Wilders to court. The head of the PVV party is accused of inciting to hatred of Muslims.

“Wilders made statements about French Muslims, about Muslims in Paris and Marseilles, which incite to racial hatred,” says lawyer Yassine Bouzrou. He lodged the complaint on behalf of the organization, which is being studied by the public prosecution. If Wilders is found guilty, he can be sentenced for one year in prison.

Wilders was not aware of the complaint yesterday evening. “I hear this for the the first time,” he said. “The wold is becoming small with trials and procedures everywhere: from the Netherlands, Jordan and England to France. Dreadful. But I’ll naturally fight back judicially. They won’t prevail over me.”

Last week the PVV head signed an official appeal against the UK’s refusal to let him into the country.

The French complaint is based on Wilders’ speech in New York last September. “Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods,” he said then. “Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves.”

He called the riots in the suburbs in 2005 a “Muslim intifada”. Bouzrou came to the conclusion that the expressions are criminal. “Wilders says in that speech also that one in three French Muslims supports suicide attacks. With that he suggests that one in three French Muslims is a potential terrorist. Where he does he get all of this? How did he get ot it? Wilders makes serious accusations which are based on nothing.”

Bouzrou made the complaint for the French human rights organization ADDH. They work together with the Collective against Islamophobia in the fight against Muslim hatred.

“A politician may express his idea. But Wilders makes dangerous statements about something of which he has no understanding. These are not political ideas, but insults and prejudices,” says the lawyer. “We already had in France attacks on mosques and against Muslim cemeteries. The statements by Wilders instigate further extremism against Muslims.”

Source: AD (Dutch)

Mosque Watch: Canada's largest mosque sued for $4 million

Calgary Herald

* Contractual agreements with infidels don’t need to be honored, because Allah has relieved the believers of their vows… Sura 9:3 Allah and His Messenger Dissolve obligations with Pagans. Sura 66:2a says “Allah has already ordained For you, the expiation of your oaths” …

* Newslink: Goa airport closed to visitors due to terrorist threat

CREDIT: Todd Korol/Reuters

CALGARY – A Calgary-based company is suing the country’s largest mosque, seeking almost $4 million in bills it claims were never paid related to the mosque’s construction.

EllisDon Construction Services filed the statement of claim this month in a bid to recover $3.9 million the company claims it is owed, and another $1 million in “damages for interference with contractual and economic relations.”

EllisDon says it signed an agreement in June 2006 to build the 45,000-square-foot Ahmadiyya Muslim Mosque, completed in late August this year.

The mosque was officially opened in July with a gala reception attended by an estimated 5,000 people, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Naseer Ahmad, an agent of Ahmadiyya, is named as a defendant. The lawsuit claims he interfered with EllisDon’s contractual and economic interests with an intent to damage its reputation.

If the sum isn’t paid, says the claim, a builders’ lien must be placed on the mosque and property and it should be sold to pay off EllisDon.

No statement of defence has been filed and none of the allegations have been proven in court.

*    “Allah is the best of deceivers”

© Canwest News Service 2008