Hamas-linked CAIR fighting Michigan anti-Sharia bill

Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacist groups have consistently and successfully argued that anti-Sharia laws would infringe upon Muslims’ religious rights. They still make headway using that argument with judges and lawmakers who are ignorant of the nature of Sharia.


In reality, no one cares about individual Muslim religious practice or wants to restrict it. The purpose of anti-Sharia laws is not to stop Muslims from getting married in Islamic religious ceremonies or to restrict their religious practice in other ways, but to stop the political and supremacist aspects of Islam that infringe upon the rights and freedoms of non-Muslims, denying the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. This is the case that must be made, but it still hasn’t been.

Also, Goodman doesn’t tell you, of course, that the Justice Department named Hamas-linked CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case. Nor does he mention that CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. He says nothing about how several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. Nor does he mention that CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements, or that its California chapter distributed posters telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI.

“Muslim rights group urges bill in Michigan Legislature be stopped,” by David N. Goodman for the Associated Press, December 12 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

A Muslim rights group has urged Gov. Rick Snyder to veto legislation designed to block the use of Islamic law in the state, should the bill reach his desk.

A House bill to bar use of “foreign laws that would impair constitutional rights” was on Tuesday’s House agenda. Rep. Dave Agema, R-Grandville, sponsored the bill, which doesn’t specifically mention the Islamic legal code sharia. However, the bill’s supporters have said they are concerned about the use of sharia spreading.

It wasn’t immediately clear whether a vote would be taken before the lame-duck session ends. Lawmakers have said they would like to wrap up by Thursday, and they spent Tuesday on approving divisive right-to-work bills that bar unions from collecting mandatory fees from workers they represent.

Agema did not return a call Tuesday seeking comment on the bill’s status.

The [Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a statement criticizing what it called an “anti-Islam bill” and urged that it be rejected.

The group said it “is calling on all people of conscience to urge Gov. Snyder to veto the biased bill, which is among those that seek to impose government-sanctioned discrimination on followers of a minority faith.”

At least 20 states have considered similar measures, and Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback signed one into law in May.

“It’s our hope that this bill doesn’t make it all the way to the governor,” Dawud Walid, executive director of the council’s Michigan chapter, said. “But if it does, we sincerely hope that he will veto this bigoted bill.”

Messages seeking comment were left with the governor’s office Tuesday.

Walid said that aside from undermining the rights and well-being of Muslims, the bill creates an atmosphere unfriendly to international investment and the immigration of people who can promote Michigan’s economic development.

Supporters have cited 50 appellate cases in 23 states that involve conflicts between sharia law and U.S. state laws, including foreign judgments on divorces and child custody that were allowed to stand. The cases they cite do not include any in Michigan.

In May, the Catholic Conference said it strongly opposes the bill because it would likely affect the application of Catholic canon law, the judicial structure governing the church.

Their opposition is entirely wrongheaded. The bill prohibits the use of foreign law that is at variance with Constitutional rights. Catholic canon law isn’t. So it wouldn’t apply to it.

Posted by Robert