Tennessee is a Leader In the Fight Against Sharia

The following was written by Joanne Bregman, a concerned citizen from Tennessee, published here with her permission:
TOWARD THE END of the 2010 session of the Tennessee General Assembly, the “American and Tennessee Law for Tennessee Courts” bill was passed (HB3768/SB3740). You might be surprised to know that Tennessee was the first state in the country to pass legislation of this type and now other states are looking to follow our lead.
Supporting the sovereignty of our state to protect its jurisprudence from the encroachment of foreign law that is discordant with our Constitutional liberties, this type of legislation has become ever more relevant in light of the aggressive efforts to advance the imposition of Sharia law in the United States. And because of the way our new law defines “foreign law, legal code or system,” it was duly noted during the House sub-committee meeting that our new law applies to Sharia law.
Sharia, often referred to as “Islamic Law,” is a legal code based on the Quran and the Sunna (Hadith and Sira). Sharia law is all-encompassing, meaning that it covers all aspects of life, including criminal law, domestic law, warfare (jihad), the how-tos of state governance, personal ethics, and prayer. Sharia regulates down to the minutest detail everything that happens in this life and the afterlife. Adherents believe that Sharia is the will of Allah, and as such, is sacred law and considered to be perfect and unchangeable for all time.
Most importantly, Sharia does not recognize "man-made law" such as our U.S. and state constitutions. Sharia is explicit in its exhortation that the very existence of man-made law constitutes a transgression of the sinners who enacted the law:

The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah. (a1.1) It is not a sin to comply with man-made laws that require buying auto insurance or having a photo ID because “the authorities are responsible for the sin, not the individual forced to comply.” (w42.3 and w50.4)

Sharia regulates belief, speech and the status of women as well as non-Muslims. It dictates all matters criminal, civil and financial. It even prescribes the rules pertaining to women removing their facial hair and wearing perfume when they are outside their home. Sharia is said to dictate a complete way of life. There is no such thing as a separate secular authority or secular law under Sharia, since religion and state do not exist as separate from one another.
Sharia is the stated and officially-recognized law of the land in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan, three nations with some of the most horrible human rights records in the world. It is no coincidence that these three nations are also heavily involved in jihadist terrorism. Sharia is also fast emerging as a parallel system of jurisprudence in many other countries with Britain being one of the most affected (read more about that here).
Examples of Sharia law include:

• violent jihad against non-Muslims to establish Islam’s rule worldwide (known as the caliphate)

• killing of apostates from Islam


• killing of adulterers and homosexuals

• severe discrimination against women, including persecution of women and execution by stoning of women who are suspected of adultery

• bodily mutilation for petty crimes such as theft including, limb amputations, gouging out of eyes


• severe discrimination against, and the subjugation of, non-Muslims


• financial jihad (“jihad with money) for those Muslims who cannot engage in physical jihad using force.

The purpose of Sharia is submission. Because Sharia adherents believe that Allah is the divine lawgiver they also believe that no other law may properly exist, and for this reason the world for Sharia adherents is divided into dar al-Islam (House of Islam or literally, House of Submission, where Sharia is enforced), and dar al-harb (House of War where Sharia is not enforced). The commanded objective is to carry out jihad indefinitely until all are dominated by the dar al-Islam. Sharia tries to attain this objective using non-violent methods. However when required, and under specified sets of conditions, the use of violence and outright war to establish the supremacy of Sharia is not just allowed, but required. This use of force or war is called jihad. Jihad also includes other non-violent methods such as lawfare, infiltration, subversion and information warfare.
Here is a very important point that is often misrepresented by Sharia adherents or apologists in an effort to make the adherence to Sharia look like any other “religious” practice: Sharia is very different from other forms of religious law, such as Jewish halacha law or Catholic canon law in that neither of the latter is meant to apply to non-Jews or non-Catholics respectively. In contrast, the very goal of Sharia is for all to live under its domination. Moreover, neither Jewish nor Christian doctrine permits the pursuit of a theocracy in place of our constitutional republic.
The leading proponent of global Sharia law is the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a block of 57 Islamic countries that has a permanent delegation to the United Nations and is the largest single voting bloc in the U.N. While the General Assembly of the U.N. adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the OIC instead, adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) affirming that Sharia was the sole source and basis of human rights and that any freedoms in the UDHR that conflict with the Sharia, do not apply to the OIC members.
So for example, the CDHRI states in Article 22(a) that “Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia.” The Sharia makes it a criminal offense to say anything derogatory about Mohammed, Islam or the Quran. Or, as noted several years ago by Awadh Binhazim (the Muslim chaplain at Vanderbilt University) during a panel discussion about the Mohammed cartoon controversy, “Islam is not something to ridicule” and that Sharia adherents do not share the value of free speech as it is recognized in the United States. This is the same Awadh Binhazim who was recorded on video last year confirming that the doctrine he is required to follow (Sharia), commands capital punishment for homosexuality.
The threat from Sharia extends far beyond that of violent jihad. The non-violent variety of jihad is sometimes referred to with three interchangeable terms — “creeping Sharia,” “stealth jihad,” and “civilizational jihad.” The Muslim Brotherhood, just like al-Qaeda and the Taliban, exists to bring this about albeit at this time, by non-violent jihad. The Brotherhood’s internal documents discovered during the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation, make it clear that civilizational jihad waged by stealth is only the prelude to imposing Sharia by force.
Lest you think the Muslim Brotherhood is just another political action group, think about this — the Muslim Brotherhood formed in Egypt in 1928 with the stated goal of implementing Sharia law worldwide and in this way, re-establish the global Muslim caliphate. The Brotherhood’s ideology as stated by its founder Hassan al-Banna:

A Muslim individual, Muslim family, Muslim nation, Muslim government and Muslim state should be able to lead Islamic governments, should be able to unite the dispersed Muslims, should be able to regain their honor and superiority, and should be able to recover their lost lands, their usurped regions and their occupied territories. Then it should be able to raise the flag of Jihad and the call towards Allah until the entire world is benefitted by the teachings of Islam.

The Muslim Brotherhood has been banned in Egypt. Even today the Global Muslim Brotherhood Report reported more arrests in Egypt of top Muslim Brotherhood leaders.
But the Muslim Brotherhood is alive and well and active in the United States. In fact, if you go on their website you can read in their by-laws in Art. 3, the following:

The Islamic nation must be fully prepared to fight the tyrants and the enemies of Allah as a prelude to establishing an Islamic state.

There is neither a geographical nor political boundary for the Islamic state because the Muslim Brotherhood defines Islam as a political and social ideology indistinguishable from their religious beliefs, all of which is reflected in Sharia law. Based on the evidence developed during the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial, (the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history), we know that virtually every major Muslim organization operating in the U.S. is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood or a derivative thereof. Some of the organizations include the:

• Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR)
• Islamic Society of North American (ISNA)
• North American Islamic Trust (NAIT)
• Islamic Circle of North American (ICNA)
• Muslism Students Association (MSA)
• International Institute of Islamic Thought (IITI)
• Fiqh Council of North America

In 1981, the Muslim Brotherhood used NAIT and took over the Bridgeview mosque in suburban Chicago. In 2004 the Chicago Tribune, in a lengthy article titled “Hard-liners won battle for Bridgeview mosque,” reported that the mosque leaders condemned Western culture, praised Palestinian suicide bombers and openly raised money to aid terrorists. The area around the mosque is reported to be an enclave.
Muslim Brotherhood front groups include the:

• Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)
• American Muslim Task Force (ATF)
• Muslim American Society (MAS)
• Council on Islamic Education (CIE)
• Cordoba Initiative

And to top it all off, it was proven during the Holy Land Foundation trial that the leadership of the Foundation, and the Foundation itself, were Hamas entities. (Hamas was formed out of the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood).

Hamas = Muslim Brotherhood = CAIR, et al
CAIR is Hamas

The objective that binds all of these groups is the professed goal of supplanting our Constitution with Sharia law. This is also the message taught explicitly to young students in Islamic schools in the U.S. The popular student textbook reportedly used in most madrassas entitled “What Islam is All About” on page 377 in the Chapter “What is an Islamic Society? Section C, How Do We Become Great Again?” states the following:

“Muslims dream of establishing the power of Islam in the world. Muslims of all types and backgrounds agree that the Islamic system is the best for humanity in this life.”

Recall that the objective of non-violent jihad is to insinuate Sharia slowly into the target society and culture over time. This has already occurred in much of Western Europe:

• In the United Kingdom, 85 Sharia courts operate openly with the force and authority of common law. Originally meant to strictly settle disputes between Muslims, 15% of the cases they hear now involve disputes with non-Muslims.

• In several nations, including Sweden and France, Muslim enclaves have developed which are essentially autonomous zones that are ruled by Sharia law. A recent report from the U.S. Family Research Council estimates that as many as 35 Islamic enclaves have been established in the U.S.

• In the United Kingdom, Canada and South Africa, due to the “necessity” of accommodating Muslims into the welfare system and succession and inheritance laws, polygamous Muslim marriages are now de facto recognized by the respective governments.

Lest you think that this will not become a problem in the United States, think again. Sharia is already starting to appear in our courts, especially in the area of family law.

• You probably didn’t know that there is something called the “Texas Islamic Court.” It decides cases according to Sharia and its rulings sometimes end up in the Texas state court.

• The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood organization named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, conducts arbitrations in the U.S. according to Sharia.

• There have been dozens of instances in which Sharia has been invoked in U.S. courts, mostly unsuccessfully, but not always.

In Tarikonda v. Punjari, a Michigan lower court upheld a Sharia-compliant triple talaq divorce performed by the husband in India, leaving the wife without any marital property or custody rights. The Court dismissed the wife’s challenge to the Indian divorce. The appellate court reversed, finding that the Indian divorce violated the wife’s due process and equal protection rights and additionally, was contrary to the public policy of the state.
In Hosain v. Malik, a Maryland appellate court upheld the enforcement of a Pakistani custody order applying the Islamic law of Haznit, requiring that a child who had been brought to the U.S. by her mother, be returned to the father. Regardless of whether in enforcing the Pakistani order the Maryland court truly ruled in “the best interests of the child,” it must be noted that the Pakistani order that was upheld had been issued in a Pakistani court without representation for the mother. The mother didn't appear in court in Pakistan because if she had showed up, she would likely have been arrested for adultery and been subject to public whipping or death by stoning. The Maryland court did not believe that her absence from the Pakistani proceeding for the stated reason was repugnant to Maryland public policy because as they stated, such punishments were “extremely unlikely.”
State lawmakers across America are starting to take action to prevent the U.S. from ending up like Western Europe, a victim of "creeping Sharia." Before the Oklahoma counter-Sharia ballot initiative made big headlines, Louisiana along with Tennessee, had already introduced bills preventing Sharia from creeping into our legal system. Senator Dewayne Bunch and Representative Vance Dennis were the first in the country to shepherd a bill nicknamed “American and Tennessee Laws for Tennessee Courts” to passage.
Because the Sharia is an anti-constitutional doctrine which stands in direct contradiction to the 6th Amendment and all of the freedoms and liberties found in our U.S. and state constitutions, our new law directs judges and lawyers to protect those rights. There should be no reason to see decisions from Tennessee courts such as those cited above. We are also pleased to report that legislators across the country are planning to use the Tennessee model to prepare for the 2011 legislative session. Eisenhower’s comment regarding Communist infiltration is as relevant today as it was in 1952:

…all of us…must remember that the Bill of Rights contains no grant of privilege for a group of people to destroy the Bill of Rights.