NY Times: Behind an Anti-Shariah Push

[alp227]

A confluence of factors has fueled the anti-Shariah movement, most notably the controversy over the proposed Islamic center near ground zero in New York, concerns about homegrown terrorism and the rise of the Tea Party. But the campaign’s air of grass-roots spontaneity, which has been carefully promoted by advocates, shrouds its more deliberate origins.

In fact, it is the product of an orchestrated drive that began five years ago in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, in the office of a little-known lawyer, David Yerushalmi, a 56-year-old Hasidic Jew with a history of controversial statements about race, immigration and Islam. Despite his lack of formal training in Islamic law, Mr. Yerushalmi has come to exercise a striking influence over American public discourse about Shariah.

Working with a cadre of conservative public-policy institutes and former military and intelligence officials, Mr. Yerushalmi has written privately financed reports, filed lawsuits against the government and drafted the model legislation that recently swept through the country — all with the effect of casting Shariah as one of the greatest threats to American freedom since the cold war.

(...)

Critics most typically cite a New Jersey case last year in which a Moroccan woman sought a restraining order against her husband after he repeatedly assaulted and raped her. The judge denied the request, finding that the defendant lacked criminal intent because he believed that his wife must comply, under Islamic law, with his demand for sex.

(...)

In a 2006 essay, he wrote that “most of the fundamental differences between the races are genetic,” and asked why “people find it so difficult to confront the facts that some races perform better in sports, some better in mathematical problem-solving, some better in language, some better in Western societies and some better in tribal ones?” He has also railed against what he sees as a politically correct culture that avoids open discussion of why “the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote.”

full: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/us/31shariah.html?pagewanted=all

Regarding that case about the Moroccan woman, it's a good thing it got reversed on appeal. I don't know whether the first amendment allows state courts to be used to enforce religious laws/contracts.

[Syrinx]

1. is this part true?

Critics most typically cite a New Jersey case last year in which a Moroccan woman sought a restraining order against her husband after he repeatedly assaulted and raped her. The judge denied the request, finding that the defendant lacked criminal intent because he believed that his wife must comply, under Islamic law, with his demand for sex.

If so, that judge must be removed from the bench.

[LARED]

2. In the UK there seems to be a push for Shariah" law"

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/309638

Bright yellow signs announcing that certain areas are shariah-controlled zones have been placed in several regions across the UK.
The signs read "You are entering a Shariah controlled zone. Islamic rules enforced" and state that smoking, alcohol, music, drugs, gambling, prostitution and porn are forbidden.

If in the UK, why not here?

[mh74562]

3. true

[WAFS]

4. Seriously?

If in the UK, why not here? I seriously hope you are being sarcastic.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GESICC]

6. Wow, he really blames a (set of) law

Interesting the man's perspective, I wonder what he believes
the result of banning other cultures in a free country are? 
Or how permeable/pervasive his stance... just what are the
far-reaching effects of anti-j-walking laws?  Or ignoring good
ones like anti-trust and anti monopoly?  Certainly
interesting, but I think history has shown, we not only don't
want to open these cans of worms, we are having enough trouble
getting the worms back in.