Militant Islam Monitor > Articles > Why Is the American Jewish Committee And Other Jewish Groups Partnering With CAIR In Support of Shari'a?
Why Is the American Jewish Committee And Other Jewish Groups Partnering With CAIR In Support of Shari'a?
May 27, 2011
May 27, 2011 - San Francisco, CA - In a shockingly bizarre display of multiculturalism, three Jewish groups, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and the Union of Reform Judaism are all apparently partnering with CAIR [the Council on American Islamic Relations, named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the nation's largest and most successful Hamas terror financing prosecution and widely believed to be a Muslim Brotherhood front group] in opposing an Oklahoma statute which has the intent of stopping the slow encroachment of Shari'a into the public sphere. [see, http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/49526/jewish-groups-us-backing-sharia-law]
The damage these groups are causing is going to be hard to remedy.
1. CAIR is such a discredited organization - due mainly to evidence produced during U.S. vs. Holy Land - that the FBI refuses to have anything to do with them and therefore one of the effects of this partnering is to bestow a mantle of undeserved legitimacy on this group of radical Islamists at precisely the point when knowledge of their true nature is coming into public consciousness.
2. In opposing the Oklahoma bill, these Jewish groups are sending the unmistakable message that Shari'a, which is manifestly hostile to the non-Muslim world, has a rightful place in Western law and culture. This despite the fact that Shari'a has been the most onerous tool which has been used historically to suppress Judaism, Christianity and all other faiths aside from Islam.
3. Those who contend that Shari'a doesn't represent a threat to America are simply ignorant of the impact which Shari'a incursion has already had on U.S. law. In a ground breaking study just released by the Center For Security Policy called Shariah Law and American State Courts the degree to which Shari'a is already being accepted at bar, with 15 trial and 12 appellate court cases cited as evidence of the increasing phenomenon.
From the study's executive summary, pg. 10:
"...Our findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Shariah law in U.S. state court cases; yet we found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases. Others state with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy; yet we found 15 Trial Court cases, and 12 Appellate Court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in the case at bar. The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with Constitutional protections. This is a serious issue and should be a subject of public debate and engagement by policymakers..."
All that can be concluded from this is that the leaders of these Jewish groups who ally in one way or another with CAIR, ISNA and the rest of the American Islamist contingent are tragically misguided.
The case is already closed, Shari'a is actively being promoted as an antidote to Western law and is increasingly being used to determine the outcome of American legal cases.
We suggest that donors to these groups suspend all future giving until and/or unless these harmful practices are addressed and corrected because as it now stands, the AJC, ADL and the Union of Reform Judaism are actively promoting an agenda which is in direct opposition to the interests of their constituencies.
American Jewish groups are fighting a proposed ban of Sharia law in the state of Oklahoma.
A coalition of organisations that include the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the American Jewish Committee (AJC) are backing a legal appeal against a measure that would prevent Islamic law from being used in the state's courts.
The AJC filed a brief last week with the US Court of Appeals arguing that the ban is an attack on religious freedom.
The AJC said the provision - called the "Save our State law" by its supporters and adopted after a referendum which delivered a 70 per cent "yes" vote last November - is unconstitutional, violating a clause in the First Amendment which bars a state preference for one religion over another.
"In a nation that treasures religious freedom and whose constitution forbids government to have favoured or disfavoured faiths, the Oklahoma provision cannot stand," wrote AJC Associate General counsel Marc Stern.
The Anti-Defamation League and the Union of Reform Judaism supported the brief, as did the Centre for Islamic Pluralism and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.
A judge issued an injunction in November putting the law on hold while the challenge is being heard.
Stephen Schwartz, who converted to Islam as an adult and is the executive director of the Centre for Islamic Pluralism, said both Jews and moderate Muslims are interested in protecting religious freedom. "This is not American, to pass a law in any state that's against the practising of a religion," he said.
He said American Jewish groups often work with mainstream Islamic organisations. "The AJC has organised three trips for moderate Muslims to visit Israel," Mr Schwartz said.
In the original lawsuit against the Oklahoma measure, Muneer Awad of the Council on American Islamic Relations said the law would infringe the rights of Oklahomans to wear religious head scarves, choose Islamic marriage contracts or to be buried according to Islamic practices.
Printer-friendly version 
Email this item to a friend