WHAT WILL THE EGYPTIAN BROTHERHOOD MEAN TO EGYPTIANS & TO AMERICA

The Muslim Brotherhood has been alive and well for many years inside America. There are Muslim Brotherhood mosques in Pennsylvania and other states. What does the election of a Muslim Brotherhood leader from Egypt mean to the Muslim people of Egypt and to America? The Muslim Brotherhood leadership know that they must act slowly because the world is watching them and they want to come across as a member of the world scene that seeks peace for the world. This is simply a pseudo set of actions for them. In reality they will be instilling Sharia aspects to their society. It will take a few years before Egypt will look like the Taliban in Afghanistan. The ones that will suffer the most will be the women and children. Sharia brings this aspect to any country that has Islamic as their guiding doctrine. Sharia calls for the marriage of girls as young as six years old. Mohammed married Aisha when she was six, and he is the example to Muslims. Women in Egypt will suffer more in regards to honor killings and dis-figuration. Thousands of young girls and women are attacked every year with acid thrown on their bodies and especially their faces. The adult Muslim men are trying to show other women that if they do not follow Sharia law 100%, they to will be the victims of acid thrown on them. For years I have studied Islam and although on the outside it appears to be a peaceful religion, this is as far from the truth as you can get. Islam is very violent and innocent women and girls suffer from its ideology. Thousands of innocent people are killed every year in the name of Islam. In America we will see Sharia being applied throughout our country. If Mr. Obama wins the election in Nov 2012, our country will likely never recover from his actions that are more aligned with Islamic values than values of the U.S. Constitution. Let’s pray for the girls and women who will suffer under Sharia law and for our country. Review the photographs below and show them to your elected leaders. Let them know you do not want Sharia in America.
 .
Dave Gaubatz

 

 

Fears of Sharia Law in America Grow Among Conservatives

Fears of Sharia Law in America Grow Among Conservatives

By
Brian Montopoli

The rise of anti-Muslim sentiment in America has brought with it a wave of largely-unsubstantiated suggestions from conservative media commentators and politicians that America is at risk of falling under the sway of Sharia law.

First, a definition: Sharia law is strict Islamic law. It is designed to guide devout Muslims in their personal and professional dealings, and has been used by the Taliban and others to justify limits on women’s rights and harsh punishments, including amputation and stoning. (It is open to interpretation, however; here’s a helpful backgrounder from the Council on Foreign Relations.)

Last week, Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle invoked Sharia law when asked about “Muslims wanting to take over the United States.”

“They are building mosques all over the place,” the questioner told Angle. “They want to build one near [ground zero]. And they seem to be getting their way. On a TV program just last night I saw that they are taking over a city in Michigan.”

After stating that the “militant terrorist situation” in question “isn’t a widespread thing,” Angle said this: “First of all, Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas are on American soil, and under Constitutional law. Not Sharia law. And I don’t know how that happened in the United States.”

“It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States,” she added.

The statement drew a rebuke from Dearborn Mayor Jack O’ Reilly, who said Angle “doesn’t know what she’s talking about.” (As for Frankford, it reportedly doesn’t exist, but is a former town annexed into Dallas 35 years ago.) The Dearborn claim may have been grounded in the arrest of four Christian evangelists for disorderly conduct at an Arab cultural festival in June, which some conservatives took as evidence that Sharia law had come to Michigan.

 The notion that Sharia law is coming to America has been percolating in the conservative media for a while. Fox News’ Sean Hannity suggested the arrest of the Christian missionaries in Dearborn reflected the possibility that “Sharia law is taking over in Dearborn,” as did Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade, who interviewed one of the men who was arrested.

At the Values Voters summit in September, Newt Gingrich said – to a standing ovation – that “[w]e should have a federal law that says Sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States.” He has also warned that jihadists are trying “to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of Sharia.”

To support his argument, Gingrich cites a 2009 judgment in New Jersey that a man had not sexually assaulted his wife because his behavior was “consistent with his practices.” The decision was later overturned, and stands as “the one and only instance of stealth sharia that anyone has been able to find,” according to the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson.

The outcry over Sharia law has been tied in large part to the controversy around the Islamic cultural center two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as other mosques around the country. In August, Dick Morris said on Fox News that the cultural center will be used to “train and recruit Sharia law advocates who become terrorists.”

Meanwhile, a former county Republican Party chairman told the Washington Post that residents opposed to a proposed mosque in Tennessee are worried that “the Muslims coming in here will keep growing in numbers and override our system of law and impose Sharia law.”

Protesters, left, and counterprotesters shout at each other during a July 14 demonstration about a planned mosque and Islamic center in Murfreesboro, Tenn. A suspicious fire was started at the mosque’s construction site and police suspect that the fire was arson.

(Credit: AP Photo/Christopher Berkey)

On the Internet, which is awash in warnings about Sharia law, Pamela Geller of the influential conservative blog Atlas Shrugged warns of “creeping Sharia” in the United States.

“It’s a drip, drip, drip, drip, drip. The mosque-ing of the workplace where you’re imposing prayer times on union contracts, non-Muslim workers have to lengthen their day: it’s wrong,” she told the New York Times. “And in places like Greeley and in Marshall, in Colorado, the media doesn’t report on it, but they’ve come to fisticuffs, there’s been rioting.”

Geller’s comments prompted the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg to write that “a Martian takeover of New Jersey is more likely than the imposition of a caliphate, or of Muslim law, on America.” He added: “Only a true paranoid could look at America as it is today and see the creeping takeover of Islamist caliphate ideology.”

But Geller is far from alone in suggesting that Sharia law is making inroads. In the right-leaning tabloid the New York Post this week, columnist Andrea Peyser warned readers that “[c]oming soon to a TV in your child’s bedroom is a posse of righteous, Sharia-compliant Muslim superheroes.”

Peyser quoted a column suggesting the show was designed to indoctrinate children and said it “has the seal of approval of a Sharia board.”

On November 2nd, voters in Oklahoma – a state not exactly awash in Islamic activity – are expected to vote in favor of a “Save Our State” constitutional amendment forbidding the state’s courts to consider Sharia or international law in making rulings.

Backers of the law say they don’t want the United States to go the way of the United Kingdom, where the archbishop of Canterbury generated an uproar more than two years ago by suggesting that British law make room for Sharia. British newspapers reported later that year that “the government has quietly sanctioned the powers for Sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.” (Tribunals grounded in Sharia law are only binding if both parties agreed to give the judges power to make rulings.)

9 Photos

The Most Loaded Phrases in American Politics

View the Full Gallery »

As it turns out, U.S. courts “already recognize and enforce Sharia in everything from commercial contracts to divorce settlements, to wills and estates,” as NPR reportsThe system in the U.S. is similar to Britain: Courts are open to honoring agreements made under Islamic (or Christian, or Jewish) law and worked out by religious tribunals – within reason. As Marc Stern of the American Jewish Committee told NPR, U.S. law supersedes religious agreements when those agreements are seen as grossly unfair. For example, when a Muslim husband in Maryland argued that he should be allowed to give his wife nothing when they divorced, citing Islamic law, the courts ruled that he did not have the right to do so.

All this isn’t to say that there isn’t the possibility that a greater Muslim presence in the United States won’t have some impact on the law; Christian-backed blue laws, which limit the sale of alcohol on Sundays in order to foster religious observance, are a good example of such religious influence.

But considering that there are perhaps two million Muslims in the United States, a country with a population of more than 310 million, fears of an outbreak of Sharia law seem overblown at best. Even if there is somehow a serious push for the imposition of Sharia law – or any other religious law – it would quickly run up against the first amendment to the Constitution.

“Were not going to see hand chopping off, were not going to see retaliatory violence, we’re not going to see underage marriages, were not going to see polygamous marriages,” Clark Lombardi of the University of Washington Law School told NPR. “The U.S. courts simply wouldn’t do it.”

Critical Contests: Interactive Map with CBS News’ Election 2010 Race Ratings


Brian Montopoli is a political reporter for CBSNews.com. You can read more of his posts here. Follow Hotsheet on Facebook and Twitter.

Battle Against Taxpayer Funded Shariah Escalates

WND EXCLUSIVE

BATTLE AGAINST TAXPAYER-FUNDED SHARIAH ESCALATES

Marine moves fight up to full 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.
.
A battle against federal taxpayer subsidies for Shariah programs is being escalated to the full 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after a three-judge panel of the court decided that a U.S. Marine had no right to challenge the government’s financial support for Islamic law.
.
The case has been brought by taxpayer Kevin J. Murray over the federal government’s multi-billion dollar bailout of AIG. It’s being handled by Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi of the American Freedom Law Center.
.
“It is one thing that our government felt compelled to bail out AIG after its fortunes were destroyed due to the company’s own recklessness and bad acts. It is quite another thing to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote and support AIG’s Shariah businesses,” Yerushalmi said.
.
The 6th Circuit’s panel of judges Alan Norris, Eric Clay and Allen Griffin ruled Murray lacked “standing” to challenge the constitutionality of the federal government’s use of taxpayer funds to support Shariah, the Islamic code of law based on the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad.
.
.
The complaint charges AIG used some of the bailout money to support the company’s Shariah-compliant insurance division, which even hires Muslims to advise on proper procedures.
.
Murray, a taxpayer and former combat Marine who served in Iraq, contends the federal government is not allowed to do that.
.
.
Muise argued it’s “well established that a federal taxpayer has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the impermissible use of federal funds appropriated and expended pursuant to Congress’ taxing and spending power.”
.
“Here, Congress appropriated billions of taxpayer funds to support AIG, and these funds are being used to support AIG’s Shariah-based activities in direct violation of the Establishment Clause,” he said.
.
At the time of the bailout, Muise said, AIG “was the world leader in promoting Shariah-compliant insurance products” and still is today.
.
The court conceded AIG subsidiaries “ensure the Shariah-compliance of its SCF products by obtaining consultation from Shariah Supervisory Committees.”
.
“The members of these committees are authorities in Shariah law and oversee the implementation of SCF products by reviewing AIG’s operations, supervising the development of SCF products, and evaluating the compliance of these products with Shariah law,” the court said.
.
The case was filed against Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and others.
.
The judges admitted that funds directed toward those subsidiaries come from U.S. taxpayers.
.
“Neither party disputes that Treasury Department financing supported all of AIG’s businesses, including the subsidiaries that marketed SCF products.”
.
AFLC’s petition seeks a full panel of the 6th Circuit for a review of the case because the three-judge decision “directly conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court and 6th Circuit precedent, and it effectively immunizes congressional spending from an as-applied constitutional challenge under the Establishment Clause. Additionally, AFLC is requesting en banc review because this case has exceptional public importance.”
.
The three-judge opinion argued federal TARP funds given to AIG were exempt from such challenges because the authorizing legislation didn’t consider giving money to aid religious outreaches such as AIG’s Shariah programs and the money was directed there by “executive” decisions.
.
Thus, the taxpayer lacked “standing” even to complain about the issue.
.
The judges came to their conclusion even though the court opinion admitted that shortly after the Treasury Department acquired an interest in AIG, the “department sponsored a conference entitled ‘Islamic Finance 101″.
.
“The stated purpose of the conference was to provide government policymakers information about Islamic finance,” the judges said. “The presentation materials from the conference discussed topics such as the source of Islamic finance, how Islamic finance works and the market factors that caused its growth.”
.
The plaintiffs argued that Congress could or should have known its bailout money to AIG would go to Shariah “since AIG was well known as the leader in [Shariah complaint finance].”
.
But the judges that didn’t matter, contending the argument”falls well short of supporting a reasonable inference of congressional intention that a portion of the [federal bailout money] might support [Shariah].”
.
The appeals judges affirmed an earlier decision from a trial court judge who concluded the $153 million of U.S. taxpayer money spent supporting Islamic Shariah really isn’t anything worth mentioning.
.

The Ugly Face of Islam – Part 1

The Ugly Face of Islam

Part 1

[Studies on Islam]

Feel free to copy and distribute

Allah has blinded them (non-Muslims). An awful doom will be theirs. K 2:6

Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs. K 2:10

A fire has been prepared for the infidels (non-Muslims), whose fuel is men and stones. K 2:24

The infidels will be burned in fire. K 2:39, 90

For the infidels is a painful doom. K 2:104

The infidels will have ignominy in this world and an awful doom in the hereafter. K 2:114

Allah will condemn the infidels to the doom of fire. K 2:126

The doom of the infidels will not be lightened. K 2:162

They will not be delivered from the fire. K 2:167

Those who hide the Bible which was revealed by Allah [Mohammed accused Jews and Christians that they hide the Scripture that prophecy about him] will have their bellies burning in fire. A painful doom will be theirs. K 2:174

How constant are they in their strife to reach the fire! K 2:175

Kill the infidels wherever you find them. K 2:191

Jihad is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight whether they like it or not. K 2:216

Those who die in their disbelief will burn forever in hell. K 2:217

The infidels worship false gods. They will burn forever in fire. K 2:257

Those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah (Koran), a heavy doom will be theirs. K 3:4

Those who disbelieve [in Islam] will be fuel for hell. K 3:10

Those who disbelieve shall be overcome and gathered unto hell. K 3:12

Promise those who disbelieve with a painful doom. K 3:21

A painful doom will be theirs. K 3:77

Allah will reject all the infidels. K 3:85

The infidels will be cursed by Allah, angels and men. They will have a painful doom. K 3:87-88

The infidels will have a painful doom. They will have no helpers. K 3:91

The infidels will have their faces blackened on Judgment Day. They will face an awful doom. K 3:105,106

Those who disbelieve will be burned in hell. K 3:116

Hell is prepared for the infidels. K 3:131

We Allah shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Hell is their dwelling. K 3:151

Awful doom will be theirs. K 3:176

The infidels will have a painful doom. K 3:177

The infidels will have a shameful doom. K 3:178

The infidels will go to hell. K 3:196

Those [non-Muslims] who disobey Allah and his messenger [Mohammed] will be burned in fire and suffer a painful doom. K 4:14

We Allah have prepared a painful doom. K 4:18

We Allah have prepared a shameful doom. K 4:37

Hell is sufficient for their burning. K 4:55

The infidels will be tortured forever with fire. When their skin is burned off, a fresh skin will be provided. K 4:56

Allah will give a great reward to those who fight for his sake. K 4:74

Believers Muslims fight for the sake of Allah and the infidels fight for the sake of the devil. Fight the companions of the devil. K 4:76

Do not befriend the infidels. Kill the infidels wherever you find them. K 4:89

If the infidels do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. K 4:91

Those who oppose the messenger (Mohammed) and become infidels will go to hell. K 4:115

Those who believe [in Islam], then disbelieve, then believe then disbelieve again, Allah will never forgive them. K 4:137

There will be a painful doom for the hypocrites [those who claim they are Muslims]. K 4:138

Allah will gather the hypocrites and the infidels into hell. K 4:140

The hypocrites will be in the lowest part of hell and will receive no help. K 4:145

You must believe everything Allah and his messengers tell you. Those who do not believe are infidels and will face a painful doom. K 4:150-151

Allah has prepared a painful doom for evil Jews. K 4:160-1

Allah will guide the infidels to the way that leads to everlasting hell. K 4:168-169

Those who deny Islam will be losers in the hereafter. K 5:5

The infidels are the rightful owners of hell. K 5:10

Those who wage wars against Allah and his messenger would be killed or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off from opposite sides or would be expelled from the land. This is their fate in this world, and in the hereafter they would have an awful doom. K 5:33

The infidels will have a painful doom. K 5:36

When the infidels try to get out of hell, they cannot. An eternal hell is theirs. K 5:37

Cut off the hands of the thieves. It is a severe punishment from Allah. K 5:38

Allah makes some people sin. He will not cleanse their hearts. They will have ignominy in this world, and an awful doom is theirs in the hereafter. K 5:41

Non-Muslims are wrong doers. K 5:45

Christians will be burned in fire. K 5:72

Christians are wrong about the Trinity. This is why they will have a painful doom. K 5:73

The infidels will be owners of hell. K 5:86

Many generations have been destroyed by Allah. K 6:6

Allah will torture those who deny his revelations Koran. K 6:49

Those who disbelieve will be forced to drink boiling water, and will face a painful doom. K 6:70

When the infidels die, the angels will deliver them to the worst doom. K 6:93

Allah allows some to disbelieve in the afterlife, and to rejoice in their disbelief, so that he can torture them forever. K 6:113

Allah chooses to guide some astray, and he lays ignominy on those who disbelieve. K 6: 125

Allah will send all people to hell, except those whom he chooses to deliver. K 6:128

Let the infidels kill their children. It is Allah’s will. K 6:137

How many a township have we destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them. K 7:4-5

Infidels are the right resident of hell. K 7:36

Entire nations have entered hell. Some get a double torment. K 7:38

Infidels will be excluded from paradise. Theirs will be a bed of hell. K 7:40-41

Those in hell will cry out to those in heaven, saying: Pour water on us. But Allah has forbidden that to infidels. K 7:50

Allah will throw fear into the hearts of the infidels, and smite their necks and fingers. K 8:12

Infidels will be tormented in the Fire. K 8:14

When you fight with infidels, do not retreat. Those who do will go to hell. K 8:15-16

Those that the Muslims killed were not really killed by them. It was Allah who did the killing. K 8:17

Those who disbelieve will be condemned to hell. K 8:36

The angels smite the face and backs of infidels, saying: ˜Taste the punishment of burning!  K 8:50

The worst beasts in Allah’s sight are the infidels. K 8:55

Don’t let the infidels think they can escape. They are your enemy and the enemy of Allah. K 8:59-60

Glossary

* ISLAM is a combination of Paganism, worship of the moon god Allah and Ebionism, a Christian heresy, spread by Mohammed Bin Abd Allah in Arabia in the 7th century. The word Islam was not derived from the Arabic word salam, which means peace as Muslims claim. It was derived from istislam which means surrender or die. The word sallem was the word which Mohammed shouted while pursuing his opposition. His militant commands, terrorist attacks, pagan, and Ebionisms beliefs are contained in the Koran, the book of Islam.

* MECCA is a town in Arabia where Mohammed shared his Christian heresy from 610-623 AD. Because he had no power, he took no action against those who chose not to follow him in Mecca.

* MEDINA is a city in Arabia where Mohammed moved after his mothers tribe offered him armed support. In Medina 623-633 AD, he and his mothers tribe waged wars to force people to follow him or be killed. In the Koran, one can clearly see the difference in Mohammeds tolerant teachings in Mecca and his harsh teachings in Medina. Muslims, instructed by the Koran, continue Jihad attacks wherever they have political power, to force people into Islam.

* KORAN is the book of Islam that Mohammed claimed was revealed to him by Allah, the pagan moon god of Arabs.

K 1:1 stands for Koran chapter 1: verse 1

* HADITH is Mohammeds sayings collected by Bukhary.

B 1:1 stands for Bukhary volume 1: saying 1

* JIHAD, holy war, is an Islamic term that means to spread Islam by force and kill whoever refuses to convert. It is the most sacred duty of Muslims and is carried out by Muslim extremists, politically known as terrorists. The Koran promotes the use of terrorist tactics K 8:12 to spread Islam and promises that Muslims who die for Allah will enjoy big breasted white virgins in paradise. K 78:33

 Kamil International Ministries Organization

Missions for Jesus

KIMO PO Box 58112, Raleigh NC 27658 USA

KIMO4JESUS10@aol.com

—–

The Great Commission

Radio Ministry [Sharing Jesus]

Great Commission [Training Missionaries]

Education Ministry [Teaching in Churches]

Good Shepherd Ministry [Child Sponsorship]

Book of Life Ministry [Bible Commentary in Arabic]

Publication Ministry [Free Bibles/Christian Literature]

Court: Marine can’t challenge Shariah

WND EXCLUSIVE

Court: Marine can’t challenge Shariah
But judges admit tax funds used ‘for arguably religious purposes’

A federal appeals court says a Marine can’t challenge a U.S. government subsidy for a program that promotes Shariah, that radical Islamic law that includes chopping off hands for theft and beheading for leaving Islam.

The ruling came today from Alan Norris, Eric Clay and Allen Griffin, judges on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

They explained that the federal TARP funds given to AIG were exempt from such challenges because the authorizing legislation didn’t consider giving money to aid religious outreaches such as AIG’s Shariah programs, and that the money was directed there by “executive” decisions.

Thus, the taxpayer lacked “standing” even to complain about the issue.

And they came to their conclusion even though the court opinion admitted that shortly after the Treasury Department acquired an interest in AIG, the “department sponsored a conference entitled ‘Islamic Finance 101.’ The stated purpose of the conference was to provide government policymakers information about Islamic finance. The presentation materials from the conference discussed topics such as the source of Islamic finance, how Islamic finance works, and the market factors that caused its growth.”

The plaintiffs argued that Congress could or should have known its bailout money to AIG would go to Shariah “since AIG was well known as the leader in [Shariah complaint finance].”

No matter, the judges ruled, This “falls well short of supporting a reasonable inference of congressional intention that a portion of the [federal bailout money] might support [Shariah].”

The appeals judges affirmed an earlier decision from a trial court judge who concluded the $153 million of U.S. taxpayer money spent supporting Islamic Shariah really isn’t anything worth mentioning.

The case was filed against Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and others and is over the nation’s bailout with taxpayer money of AIG insurance, which operates multiple companies promoting Shariah-complaint insurance products.

The specific lawsuit was filed on behalf of taxpayer Kevin J. Murray over the bailout, which has involved billions of taxpayer dollars. It’s being handled by Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi of the American Freedom Law Center.

At the district court level, the case was dismissed by Judge Lawrence Zatkoff, who ruled that the case needed yet to prove that “the diverted funds were not de minimus in relation to the total amount…”

Read “The Stoning of Soraya M.” – the true story that inspired the movie

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines de minimus as “so minor as to merit disregard,” but the plaintiffs attorneys noted in their appeal brief that “even the district court had to concede that after cash-strapped AIG received billions of dollars in taxpayer money … it provided two of its SCF [Shariah-compliant] subsidiaries with at least $153 million.”

The lawsuit alleges that the U.S. government’s takeover and financial bailout of AIG was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

According to American Freedom Law Center’s investigation, AIG has five subsidiaries that promote and practice Shariah in Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Bahrain and the United States.

Those companies hire Muslims to tell them how to meet the demands of Shariah, and the U.S. government has placed no controls over the billions of dollars in taxpayer money delivered to AIG.

Yerushalmi and Muise said they would appeal the case alleging the U.S. government’s takeover and financial bailout of AIG was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

It claims specifically, at the time of the government bailout (beginning in September 2008 and continuing to the present), AIG was (and still is) the world leader in promoting Shariah-compliant insurance products. As the Sixth Circuit acknowledged in its opinion today, “‘Shariah’ refers to Islamic law based on the teachings of the Quran. It is the Islamic code embodying the way of life for Muslims and is intended to serve as the civic law in Muslim countries.”

As argued by AFLC, by propping up AIG with taxpayer funds, the U.S. government is directly and indirectly promoting Islam and, more troubling, Shariah. And as the Sixth Circuit noted in its opinion, Murray objects to his tax money being used to support Shariah because it “forms the basis for the global jihadist war against the West and the United States.”

Muise said, “This decision by the Sixth Circuit is troubling on many levels. First, it is contrary to controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent, which allows a taxpayer to challenge a congressional spending program that violates the Establishment Clause. And second, this decision permits the federal government to continue its practice of promoting and supporting Shariah through the use of taxpayer funds. We intend to request a rehearing by the full court, and if that does not succeed, we will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.”

The court ruling admitted, “AIG subsidiaries ensure the Shariah-compliance of its SCF products by obtaining consultation from ‘Shariah Supervisory Committees.’ The members of these committees are authorities in Shariah law and oversee the implementation of SCF products by reviewing AIG’s operations, supervising the development of SCF products, and evaluating the compliance of these products with Shariah law.”

The court acknowledged that “AIG’s subsidiaries received a significant portion of the funds AIG received from the federal government” and that “[s]ix AIG subsidiaries have marketed and sold SCF products since AIG began receiving capital injections from the federal government.”

Yerushalmi said, “It is one thing that our government felt compelled to bail out AIG after its fortunes were destroyed due to the company’s own recklessness and bad acts. It is quite another thing to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote and support AIG’s Shariah businesses.”

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated Press. Sports, tornadoes, homicidal survivalists, and legislative battles all fell within his bailiwick. His scenic photography has been used commercially, and he sometimes plays in a church worship band.


Judge Shuts Down Mega-Mosque Construction

WND EXCLUSIVE

Judge shuts down mega-mosque construction.
Court ruling says county avoided legal building-permit process.

 Murfreesboro32

Work on a mega-mosque already well along in the construction process in Murfreesboro, Tenn., has been shut down – the existing building’s future uncertain – by a court’s ruling the county avoided the legal process required for granting building permission for the project.

The ruling said the county’s actions effectively violated the state’s Open Meetings law during the time when the mega-structure was being approved.

“The court finds that the action of the county was not sufficient to provide the type of notice to citizens of the county that such matters were to be considered at the meeting of the Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission which should be expected under our law,” said the opinion made public today from the Chancery Court of Tennessee, 16th District.

“Under the mandates of the statute, the court then finds that the actions of that commission regarding the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro were in fact void and of no effect.”

See what you can do in your community, get “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.”

While there was a notice of the meeting in a local newspaper, the paper itself had “virtually no paid circulation,” and there was no showing of any notice on the county’s cable television station or on its website.

“The court assumed there was no ill intention or willful deception on the part of the county,” the ruling continued.

“We do not attribute any sinister motives to the county, though we note the undercurrent of the argument presented by the plaintiffs. We simply find that the county failed to publish the meeting…”

The opinion noted that under the county regulations there is not an entitlement to a public hearing, but there is a requirement that the public be properly notified.

It further said that the denial of permission for a building to be used “as a religious meeting place” must be done in a non-discriminatory manner.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, one of the attorneys working with the plaintiffs in the case, told WND the next step likely will be a renewal of the attempts by the county to grant building permission. He credited other attorneys on the case, Joe Brandon and Tom Smith, with arguing the case successfully.

He said the plaintiffs contended the process ignored several factors, including that the land where the now-unusable building stands formerly was a pig farm, which is supposed to be anathema to Muslims.

He called it a “political power move” on the part of the powers who wanted the mosque to be built.

The Muslim organization building the mega-mosque had obtained permission for nearly 53,000 square feet of buildings on its lot of land, and the first 12,000-square-soot section was nearly done.

Rutherford County officials have said that they don’t expect any buildings to be torn down, even though the process was violated.

Pamela Geller, publisher of AtlasShrugs.com, also is the author of the WND Books title “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance” and “The Post American Presidency: The Obama’s Administration’s war on America,” published by Simon Schuster.

She revealed how the Department of Justice, which though it has named the Islamic Society of North America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other key Muslim groups and figures as unindicted co-conspirators in a scheme to fund the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, filed a friend-of-the-court brief demanding that the case against the Murfreesboro mosque be dismissed.