NC politians promote “Christian state” & want to ban Sharia

NC politicians promote “Christian state” & want to ban Sharia

by Sheila Musaji

  Last month, TAM published an article Mixing religion with politics in North Carolina by Imam Abdullah Antepli.  That article discussed the attempt to make Christianity the “state religion” of North Carolina.  Some of our elected representatives attempted to get a resolution passed, and as Imam Antepli noted:

For those who didn’t follow very closely, here is the main part of the resolution:

SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

SECTION 2. The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings, which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

I received these developments with mixed feelings of anger, frustration, joy and hope. First, as an American Muslim leader, very often I am deeply embarrassed by and put in a position to explain the shameful and troubling actions of fellow Muslims elsewhere in the world. It was an ironic break to be put in a similar situation—not because I am a Muslim, but because I am a proud N.C. resident. Even though I know Islam and Muslims neither own nor produce all the crazies in the world, it was therapeutically comforting to see a similarly troubling action right at home. Seeing the embarrassment and puzzlement of some Christian friends in response to this resolution, you can’t help but feel reassured. Misery always likes company.

As the reality started sinking in further, anger and frustration took over my relief. We are in 2013, and have spent 200-plus years striving to improve our secular democracy and strengthen our civic society, which is a beautiful mosaic of many religions, cultures and colors. And 14 well-educated elected officials are trying to establish a state religion: SIGH! The legislators who cooked up this circus do not mention which religion will be the official religion of North Carolina if this resolution becomes a law. If, however, you pay attention to the context of this resolution and pay even closer attention to these legislators’ personal and professional records, the brand of religion they are promoting is clear.

These are indeed deeply troubling and potentially dangerous developments, as they are familiar signs of much bigger and more harmful troubles for our entire nation. These politicians are playing with fire by mixing religion and politics in such an unwise, harmful and destructive way. Think about it: Everyone, including these 14 elected officials, knows that this resolution will never fly and will never become law. Even if it becomes a law here in North Carolina, our federal government will shoot it down, as it will be in direct violation of the Constitution. Then why are they doing this? Why are they seemingly making fools of themselves and harming the reputation of their political party, religion, state, country and more? These politicians cannot be that naïve and disconnected from the reality. They are doing this because they were made to believe, by themselves and others, that this is the easiest way to score political points in N.C. based on their reading of current political affairs in our state. These people look at the outcomes of Amendment One and the results of our recent presidential election, and they are playing a very dangerous, shortsighted, cheap and selfish political game by introducing this resolution. So it is not entirely pointless as far as these politicians’ present and future personal ambitions in politics are concerned. It may serve very well in the short run for them if we don’t do anything about it.

However, these unwise leaders of our state do not realize that this fire they are playing with could spread much more quickly and turn into a much bigger disaster than they think. These developments could further divide our already very divided nation; they could potentially give rise to certain exclusive and harmful forces that are already troublingly louder and more powerful than before.

No one knows this destructive game better than the millions of American Muslims, including myself, who have come from countries where reckless politicians’ dangerous experiments in mixing religion and politics have had devastating consequences for the entire nation. These cheap political games tore apart the social fabric of those societies, disturbed social harmony, gave rise to intolerance and enmity, and turned long-standing friends into enemies as they disturbed centuries-long neighborly, brotherly-sisterly and loving relationships.

Unfortunately, most developed and healthy societies react to harmful trends in substantial ways only when things seem to get out of control. My only hopeful expectation out of this madness is that the Defense of Religion Act will shock so many lazy, inactive and silent moderates to finally respond to the loud call for action. I believe these moderates, both locally and nationally, still represent the overwhelming majority of people here in the United States. I wonder: If this tragic resolution doesn’t wake them up and motivate them to act against the troubling rise of exclusivism and its various threats to our secular democracy and civic society, what will?

It seems that the same politicians who attempted this attack on the Constitution, now want to ban Sharia in North Carolina.  Both Rep. Carl Ford and Rep. Harry Warren who proposed the previous resolution, also voted in favor of the Sharia ban.

Laura Leslie of WRAL in North Carolina reports that:

A proposal to ban the recognition of Islamic Sharia law in North Carolina courts is headed for the Senate after winning final House approval Thursday.  Rep. Rick Glazier, D-Cumberland, said House Bill 695 is unnecessary, would conflict with constitutional due process rights and would damage North Carolina’s image in the eyes of the international business community. ...

Just yesterday, a new report was published by the Center for American Progress (CAP) on this latest surge of anti-Sharia mania in many states.  The 66 page report Foreign Law Bans:  Legal Uncertainties and Practical Problems  was written by Fazia Patel, Matthew Duss, and Amos Toh.  You can download the PDF here They note in their introduction that:

Over the past two years, a number of state legislatures have moved to ban the use of foreign or international law in legal disputes. As of the date of this report, lawmakers in 32 states have introduced and debated these types of bills. Foreign law bans have already been enacted in Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Arizona, while a related ban on the enforcement of “any religious code” has been enacted in South Dakota. Most recently, intensive campaigning by the Anti-Defamation League and religious freedom groups resulted in the defeat of a proposed foreign law ban in Florida. But at least five states are poised to pass similar measures in 2013 and 2014: Missouri, Texas, Alabama, South Carolina, and Iowa. Table 1 below illustrates the anti-foreign law movement across the country.

Although packaged as an effort to protect American values and democracy, the bans spring from a movement whose goal is the demonization of the Islamic faith. Beyond that, however, many foreign law bans are so broadly phrased as to cast doubt on the validity of a whole host of personal and business arrangements. Their enactment could result in years of litigation as state courts struggle to construe what these laws actually mean and how they interact with well-established legal doctrines. The legal uncertainties created by foreign law bans are the reason why a range of business and corporate interests as well as representatives of faith communities have mobilized against them. The American Bar Association, the country’s largest and most respected association of legal professionals, has also passed a resolution opposing the bans.

The most vociferous proponents of foreign law bans are a small network of activists who cast Muslim norms and culture, which they collectively and inaccurately labeled as Sharia law, as one of the greatest threats to American freedom since the Cold War. Ground zero for this effort was Oklahoma, and the lessons learned there provided a template for anti-Sharia efforts in other states. On Election Day 2010 Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved the Save Our State referendum, a ballot initiative that banned the use of Sharia in the state’s courts. While the Oklahoma measure was immediately challenged in court, and ultimately struck down as unconstitutionally discriminatory toward American Muslims, its proponents launched a nationwide movement to recast anti-Sharia measures as bans on foreign and international law. This involved removing specific references to Islam in order to help the measures pass legal muster and successfully tapping into deep-rooted suspicions about the influence of foreign laws over the American legal system. While the intent of foreign law bans is clear, proponents of these bans hope that the foreign law veneer will save the measures from being invalidated on constitutional grounds.

Most foreign law bans are crafted so that they seem to track the rules normally followed by courts when considering whether to apply foreign law. State courts consider drawing upon foreign law in situations ranging from contract disputes where the parties have selected the law of another nation as controlling, to cases where the validity of a marriage or custody arrangement concluded in another country are questioned. And state courts routinely apply foreign law provided it does not violate U.S. public policy. State courts, for example, will not recognize polygamous marriages, which are permitted in some Muslim countries, and most of them will not recognize marriages between same-sex couples, which are permitted in many European countries. While cases involving foreign law occasionally impinge upon American public policy concerns, most are quite uncontroversial. A typical case involving foreign law—described by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in a recent speech—would be one where the Court, for example, was called on to decide whether a corporation organized in the British Virgin Islands was a citizen or subject of a foreign state. The answer to the question depended on English law, and so the Court naturally looked to that body of law, said Justice Scalia.

The very premise of foreign law bans, however, is that law that comes from outside the United States is something to be feared. The bans depart sufficiently from current practice and jeopardize well-established rules regulating the application of foreign law in American courts. Several of the bans suggest that the use of foreign law is prohibited not only when the law at issue in a particular case is at variance with constitutional values, but also when the legal system of the country from which the law emerges is itself not in conformity with these values. That is to say laws from countries that do not protect rights in the same way that the United States does should be prohibited in U.S. courts. Kansas, for example, prohibits state courts from relying on foreign laws from any system that does not grant the same measure of rights provided under the U.S. and Kansas constitutions. The anti-foreign law bill that was recently signed into law in Oklahoma, as well as bills under consideration in Missouri and Iowa, are similar in scope. By essentially engaging state courts in wholesale evaluations of foreign legal systems, these bans open up the type of broad inquiry that is inimical to the case-by-case approach typically applied by American courts.

Through a detailed examination of the anti-Sharia movement and a look at how U.S. courts have traditionally approached foreign and religious law, this report shows that the foreign law bans are both anti-Muslim in intent and throw into question the status of a range of contractual arrangements involving foreign and religious law. The report begins by explaining how the anti-Sharia movement evolved into an anti-foreign law campaign in order to avoid the patently unconstitutional practice of explicitly targeting Muslims.

It next explains the role of foreign and international law in American courts and the difference between the two. The international law to which the United States subscribes—for example, treaties ratified by the Senate—is part of the law of the land by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Foreign law, on the other hand, is the domestic law of other countries and is used by American courts only where its application does not violate public policy. This section explains that while the use of foreign sources in constitutional interpretation is hotly contested, the consideration of foreign law in everyday disputes—such as those involving contracts—is largely uncontroversial and that courts have long used carefully calibrated tools to ensure that application of foreign laws does not violate U.S. policy.

We then turn to the specifics of the foreign law bans and demonstrate that some bans are inconsistent with the practice of U.S. courts and that all bans create uncertainty about how non-U.S. legal sources will be treated. The foreign law bans also raise serious questions under separation of powers principles, as well as the Full Faith and Credit and Contract clauses of the Constitution. The report next details the possible disruptive consequences of foreign law bans, particularly for American families and businesses, and then uncovers the true purpose of foreign law bans. Simply put, it is to target Muslims. Based on this context, we argue that the bans are vulnerable to challenge under the First Amendment and several state constitutions as unduly burdening the free exercise of religion.

The report concludes by recommending that state legislatures considering such bills should reject them, and those that have passed foreign law bans should repeal them. The bans set out to cure an illusory problem but could create a myriad of unintended real ones. These bans, moreover, send a message that a state is unreceptive to foreign businesses and minority groups, particularly Muslims. And, as this report details, these bans sow confusion about a variety of personal and business arrangements. The issues raised by foreign law bans may lead to decades of litigation as state courts examine their consequences and struggle to interpret them in ways that avoid constitutional concerns and discrimination against all minority faiths.

As I have said previously“As an American Muslim I would be opposed to any suggestion that Sharia replace our American legal system for American Muslims or any other Americans, and I would be the first to fight any such possibility.  However, the inclusion of Sharia arbitration or alternative dispute resolution that might be utilized by Muslims who so choose after signing a binding arbitration agreement (signed by both parties in a dispute), or that might file an amicus brief with the court is not an alarming new idea. In fact, it is an existing option for other religious communities. Any decision rendered by a tribunal or a panel of mediators is subject to appeal to the courts and must be consistent with American law and our Constitution.” 

The following are some points from my article American Muslims must defend the Constitution of the United States.  In fact all Americans must defend the Constitution, the separation of church and state, and religious freedom.  I don’t want to live in a Christian state or a Muslim state, but in a state governed by the Constitution in which each citizen is free to practice any (or no) religion and the state is religiously neutral.  America is a secular and democratic nation with a clearly marked wall between church and state (thank God!).  One of the reasons America has been a beacon to the world is the freedom that all Americans have to practice any (or no) religion.  As an American Muslim I don’t believe that America can be defined as anything but a secular democracy (secular meaning neutral towards religion, not devoid of religion or hostile to religion) in which all religions are free to worship.

I don’t want to see Shariah, or Biblical law, or any other religious law replace the Constitution, and I don’t want to see any kind of a theocracy in place based on any religion.  I agree with Rabbi Arthur Waskow that “When those who claim their path alone bespeaks God’s Will control the State to enforce their will as God’s, it is God Who suffers.”

The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments to the Constitution) are the foundation of this country.  They represent the ideal of America.  America is a multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-ethnic nation.  That’s a fact.  Members of many religious groups, races, nationalities, etc. are equally Americans, and none of them are going anywhere.  We are all in this together, and as Americans are all protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States.  That is fortunate, and something we must all work together to protect, as it is obvious that some among us just ‘don’t get it’.  It is obvious that our religious communities differ from each other, and that each of us feels called to observe their own faith.  It should be possible to do this while recognizing that we do hold many values in common, and that we can build on these in order to work together for the common good.  We can be good Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc. and also be fellow citizens of this great nation.

If some start talking about this being a “Christian nation”, or a nation of any specific majority group, that is a direct attack on the first amendment.  The separation of church and state is a critical protection for all of us, without that we would have the rule of whatever religion happened to be in the majority at any particular time in history and that would lead to a tyranny of the majority.  Right now there are about 300 million people in the U.S.  About 51% of Americans are Protestants (with Southern Baptists the single largest group),  24% are Catholics, and the rest other religions, or no religion at all. 

The point is that things don’t remain the same.  If we begin the this is a “Christian country” game, is this based on who is in the majority?  If so, does this mean that we are a Protestant nation?  What will happen if the slender 51% majority margin shifts?  Since the Southern Baptists are the majority among the Protestants, does this mean that we are a Southern Baptist nation?  What would this mean for the majority and for all the minorities.  Those people who ‘don’t get the Constitution’ also must ‘not get history’ because history shows that this would mean the end of America as the land of the free.

Truly, the best protection for everyone is to maintain America as a secular democracy under the Constitution.  Anything else will lead inevitably to persecution and tyranny.

It is often stated by bigots that American Muslims are some sort of a fifth colum in this country just waiting to implement Shariah law and destroy the Constitution.  Actually most American Muslims are only too aware of the freedoms they have in America.  I am sure that there may be some such deranged Muslims who would like to see the wall of separation come down, and they should either go back where they came from if they are immigrants, or if they were born here, they should make hijra (emigrate) to a predominantly Muslim country.  Whatever thought process, or lack thereof that these Muslims are following to come to this conclusion is deeply flawed, not only on an Islamic basis, but also on a common sense basis.  If you are 1% of the population of the nation, and you are claiming that your goal is to “fly an Islamic flag from the Whitehouse” or to “replace the Constitution with Sharia law”, that is like waving a red cloth in front of 100 angry bulls.  It is ridiculous, foolhardy, and dangerous, not just for yourself but for the entire Muslim community who will inevitably be accused of secretly sharing your view and will bear the brunt of any backlash resulting from your words or actions.  Only a desire for self-destruction could lead a person not to see that the Constitution of the U.S. is the only thing protecting the Muslim community as well as any other minority community.  If these Muslims stay here and continue with this sort of rhetoric, they will be resisted by all patriotic Americans.  However, they are not the only ones who ‘don’t get it’.

There have been a number of statements made, in too many cases by clergymen and politicians which make it very clear that there are some who don’t “hold these truths to be self evident” and need to be reminded that our freedom came at a price and must be defended by all of us. 

These politicians who are attempting to favor one religion over another really do need to study the Constitution, and to study history. 



A Christian Nation?, Rev. Daniel J. Webster
A Christian Nation?, John M. Kelley
A Christian Nation Or Nation Of Christians?, Dr. Hesham Hassaballa
A Holy Constitution: Is America a Christian Nation?, Dr. Khaled Abdel-Hamid
A Christian Nation?: Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?, Michael D. Greaney
A Who’s Who of the Anti-Muslim/Anti-Arab/Islamophobia Industry, Sheila Musaji
ACT for America launches media blitz to win yes vote in Oklahoma anti-Sharia ballot
The advance of the anti-Muslim movement across America, Paul Woodward
All Bigoted Islamophobic Roads Lead to Frank Gaffney, Richard Allen Smith
The American Muslim Community and Rep. Peter King’s “Islamic” Radicalization Hearings, Sheila Musaji (section on linkage with anti-Sharia movement)
American Muslims must defend the Constitution of the United States, Sheila Musaji
Anti-Sharia Movements’ Unintended Consquences For Jews, Native Americans, and Others, Sheila Musaji (with lengthy article collection on this topic)
Anti-Sharia Advocates: We’ve Not Yet Begun to Fight, Tim Murphy
Are Opponents of Shariah Anti-Islam?, Farzana Hassan-Shahid
Are Sharia Laws and Human Rights Compatible?, Emran Qureishi & Heba Ezzat
Michele Bachmann Endorses Call for Anti-Muslim Inquisition, Daniel Luban
Bent on Confusing the Public about Islam: The Far Right Exploits Rifqa Bary’s Case to Distort Islam, Louay Safi
Center for Security Policy background
Center for Security Policy Sharia Report a Threat to American Ideals, Sheila Musaji
Challenge to Islamic Jurisprudence, Robert D. Crane
Clearing the fog of Shariah, Daisy Khan
Conservatives Chew Up Their Own in Battle Over Islamic Community Center, Bill Berkowitz
Conservative Feud Grows Over Muslims White House Staffers, Shahed Amanullah
Controversy Over Khalil Gibran Academy and Debbie Almontaser
Henry Cooper background, Rightweb
Cordoba House: Hope From the Ashes of Tragedy, Sheila Musaji
Cordoba House versus Team B: Key to the Global 21st Century, Dr. Robert D. Crane
Stephen Coughlin: Islamofascist Nonsense, Larry Johnson
Discussion of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s views on Sharia, Enver Masud
Does the first amendment apply to Muslims?, John Guardiano
FBI Leaking To Neocon Conspiracy-Theorist Frank Gaffney?
For critics of Islam,“sharia” becomes shorthand for extremism, Michelle Boorstein
Forget ‘Ground Zero Mosque’, It’s the Great Sharia Conspiracy, Daniel Luban
Fox & Friends crops Rauf’s CFR comments to fearmonger about Sharia law, Justin Berrier
Fox Promotes NSS “Islamic Crescent Logo” Conspiracy Theory, Richard Bartholomew
Free-speech hero or an anti-Islamic publicity hound? Geert Wilders is coming to America., Mark Hosenball
The future of Shariah, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im
Gaffney: The left and Islamists are both “advancing the takedown of America”,
Gaffney: The President ‘May Actually Still Be’ A Muslim
Frank Gaffney: At War with Islam
Frank Gaffney: Obama Duped America Like Hitler Duped Chamberlain
The Gaffney Report aka ‘The Return of Dr Strangelove’, Abdul Cader Asmal
Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy Sharia Reports a Threat to American Ideals, Sheila Musaji
GOPer can’t define, but wants to ban, sharia law, Justin Elliott
Higher Objectives of Islamic Law (Maqasid ash-Sharia), Mohammed Hashim Kamali
Pete Hoekstra, Shameless Buffoon, Steve Benen
Hoekstra’s “epic grandstanding”, Jason Linkins
David Horowitz’s Blog Spouting Propaganda as Usual on Sharia
How to talk about Shariah in Oklahoma, Eboo Patel
International Humanitarian Law: Western Innovation Or Islamic Breakthrough, Mahmoud Mobarak
Introduction to Shariah and Fiqh,
Interview with Imam Feisal on Sharia, Laura Sheahen
Is Killing An Apostate in the Islamic Law?, Dr. Ibrahim B. Syed
Is Sharia law reconcilable with modernity?, Sh. Ali Gomaa Islam and democracy - article collection
Islamic Finance: A Question of Law or Justice?, Dr. Robert D. Crane Islamic Law: A Thematic Primer on Human Rights, Dr. Robert D. Crane
Islamic Sharia and Jewish Halakha Arbitration Courts, Sheila Musaji (with lengthy article collection on this topic)
Legal Rationality vs. Arbitrary Judgement: Re-examining the Tradition of Islamic Law, S. Parvez Manzoor
Mapping Sharia in America Project, Richard Bartholomew
Mapping Shari’a in America Project, Yes, Just a bunch of nut cases but….
Mapping Sharia Project Goes Beyond Islamophobia to Raving, Paranoid, In(SANE)ity! updated, Sheila Musaji
Meet the White Supremacist Leading the GOP’s Anti-Sharia Crusade, Tim Murphy
Meet the nutter behind the Sharia Report, Daniel Luban
Meet Wyoming’s Anti-Shari’ah Crusader, Sarah Posner
The Misinformants: What ‘stealth jihad’ doesn’t mean, Lisa Miller
Moral Maturity of Two Year Olds: Reward and Punishment Mentality of Muslims, Pamela Taylor
Thomas More Law Center’s claim of Sharia Law in Dearborn defies reality, reason
Mosque debate is not a distraction, Glenn Greenwald
MPAC’s Response to Frank Gaffney’s Slander
Muslim Americans and Shariah
NeoCons Make Unapologetic Call for McCarthyism against Muslims
Neoconservatives hate liberty as much as they love war, Glenn Greenwald
New Rainbow of Islamic Knowledge and Religious Diversity: Zaytuna College, Dr. Ibram Rogers
The New Anti-Semitism: Recent attacks on Islam in the United States echo old slurs against Jews, Daniel Luban
Notion of Shura, Shura and Democracy, Tariq Ramadan
Nuclear Security Summit Logo Is Proof of What?, Sheila Musaji
Obsession: Deja Vu! Never Again?, Jeff Siddiqui
Origins of Islamic Law
The Pathetic Desperation of the Anti-Kagan Campaign
The philosophy of Sharia - the Clear Path, Faraz Rabbani
Policy Exchange, SANE and the ‘vital importance of controlling the Arabs’, Tom Griffin
Propaganda, the internet and the media: from CounterJihad to the Decent Left, Tom Griffin
Progressive radio show in NY serves up neocon moonshine about Islam, Philip Weiss
Re-examining primary and secondary sources of Shariah, Farzana Hassan-Shahid
Review: Documentary “America at a Crossroads”, Rafia Zakaria
Right-Wing Nuts: “Obama is a Mooslim, Convert Mooslims”
The Right’s Anti-Islam Extremists, John Guardiano
Rise of Professionalism in Moral Awareness, Robert D. Crane
Pat Robertson continues fight against halal food
Role of Morality in Politics, Robert D. Crane
On Team B-ing, Spencer Ackerman
Daniel Pipes Brings Weak Sauce: Sharia, Halakha, and Double Standards; Part 1
SANE: An Islamophobic group attempts to banish Islam from the U.S., Abdus Sattar Ghazali
Separation of church and state - article collection
Setting the Record Straight on Sharia, An Interview with Intisar Rabb, Sally Steenland
Sharia - collection of articles
Shariah and Contemporary Issues, By Dr. Adbul Basit
Sharia and Fiqh: Understanding Ijtihad, Abu Munir Winkel
Shariah and Religious Absolutism, Farzana Hassan
Sharia is not the problem
Shariah Law Explained, BBC special report
SHARIAH: Legacy of the Prophet: The Role of Human Rights in Islamic Law, Dr. Robert D. Crane
Sharia and day to day existence, Dr. Sherman Jackson
Sharia in America, how Islamic laws change, Dr. Sherman Jackson
Sharia panic factory, Justin Elliott
Source Methodology in Islamic Jurisprudence, Taha Jabir al’Alwani,
South Dakota Considering Ban on Courts Using “Foreign Religious or Moral Code”“foreign-religious-or-moral-code”/
Specter Embraces Pipes Islamophobia, Richard Silverstein
Spies, Lies from “Mapping Sharia” Group Hit Dar Al-Hijrah, Tariq Nelson
States Move To Ban Islamic Sharia Law: NPR interview with Yerushalmi and Intisar Rabb
Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA) New Anti-Islam Group, Same Old Faces, Richard Bartholomew
Tennessee bill would jail Shariah followers
Tennessee bill not good law
Tennessee Sharia law ban, Elizabeth Tenety
Tennessee Legislation demonstrates ignorance, promotes hate
Tennessee lawmaker would make practicing Islamic law a felony
Tennessee’s Anti-Muslim Bill is an American Disgrace, Daniel Tutt
The Terror Industry And Anti-Jihadism, Who Benefits?, Richard Silverstein
Ulama, Hegemony and Reform, Chandra Muzaffar,
Umar Faruq Abd-Allah says U.S. and Islamic Law Congruent
Understanding the Four Madhabs, Abdul Hakim Murad,
Unity Through Schools of Thought, Abdal Hakim Murad
Unintended consequences of anti-Sharia legislation, Muqtedar Khan
The Week in Sharia: Elvis Retreats, Texas Reloads, Tim Murphy - The Week in Sharia: Texas Has Its Sputnik Moment
Welcome to the Shari‘ah Conspiracy Theory Industry, Sarah Posner
Allen West on Frank Gaffney’s radio program discussing anti-Sharia proposals
What Sharia law actually means, Justin Elliott
What Shariah Law Is All About, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
Why Shariah?, Noah Feldman
Who Decides Right or Wrong, Tariq Ramadan
Who Owns Islamic Law?, David Glen
Will Muslims impose Sharia?, Dr. John Esposito
Who’s Afraid of Shariah? , Sumbul ali-Karamali
Why the GOP embraced Islamophobia, Joe Conason
Woolsey’s World War IV Comments Reveal Truth About War on Iraq, Stan Moore
Would Oklahoma anti-Sharia law violate Native American tribal treaties?
David Yerushalmi and (in)SANE, Sheila Musaji
David Yerushalmi, Anti-Semitic White-Supremacist Orthodox Jew Tries To Ban Islam In US, Bruce Wilson
Yerushalmi: Devout Jewish Fascist, Richard Silverstein
David Yerushalmi: A Driving Force Behind Anti-Sharia Efforts in the U.S. - an ADL backgrounder
Yerushalmi: House Republicans pal around with anti-Muslim, anti-Black racist David Yerushalmi, Alex Kane
Yerushalmi: Neocon ‘Team B’ Author: ‘Islam Was Born In Violence; It Will Die That Way’
Yerushalmi: How Many Muslims Contributed To New Right-Wing ‘Team B’ Report On Islamic Sharia Law? None, Matt Duss
Who is David Yerushalmi, CAIR