Sharia Law Gains Foothold in US: Federal Judge Upholds Government Funding of 
Islam -- Thomas More Law Center Files Appeal

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

AIG - JihadistLast week, Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff, a federal district court 
judge in Michigan, dismissed a constitutional challenge to the U.S. 
Government’s bailout of AIG, which used over a hundred million dollars in 
federal tax money to support Islamic religious indoctrination through the 
funding and promotion of Sharia-compliant financing (SCF).  SCF is financing 
that follows the dictates of Islamic law. 

The challenge was brought by the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national 
public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and co-counsel David 
Yerushalmi, on behalf of Kevin Murray, a Marine Corps veteran of the Iraqi War. 
 TMLC filed a notice of appeal immediately after the ruling and will be seeking 
review of the decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of TMLC, commented: “Judge 
Zatkoff’s ruling allows for oil–rich Muslim countries to plant the flag of 
Islam on American soil.  His ruling ignored the uncontested opinions of several 
Sharia experts and AIG’s own website, which trumpeted Sharia-compliant 
financing as promoting the law of the Prophet Mohammed and as an ‘ethical 
product, ’ and a ‘new way of life.’ His ruling ignored AIG’s use of a foreign 
Islamic advisory board to control investing in accordance with Islamic law.”

AIG - Jihadists burning American flagContinued Thompson: “This astonishing 
decision allows the federal government as well as AIG and other Wall Street 
bankers to explicitly promote Sharia law ─ the 1200 year old body of Islamic 
canon law based on the Koran, which demands the destruction of Western 
Civilization and the United States.  This is the same law championed by Osama 
bin Laden and the Taliban; it is the same law that prompted the 9/11 Islamic 
terrorist attacks; and it is the same law that is responsible for the murder of 
thousands of Christians throughout the world.  The Law Center will do 
everything it can to stop Sharia law from rearing its ugly head in America.”

The federal lawsuit was filed in 2008 against Secretary of the Treasury Timothy 
Geithner and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  It 
challenges that portion of the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” 
(EESA) that appropriated $70 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially 
support the federal government’s majority ownership interest in AIG, which is 
considered the market leader in SCF.                      According to the 
lawsuit, “The use of these taxpayer funds to approve, promote, endorse, 
support, and fund these                     Sharia-based Islamic religious 
activities violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the 
United States Constitution.”  

AIG - AIG BuildingThrough the use of taxpayer funds, the federal government 
acquired a majority ownership interest (nearly 80%) in AIG; and as part of the 
bailout, Congress appropriated $70 billion of taxpayer money to fund and 
financially support AIG and its financial activities, $47.5 billion of which 
was actually distributed to AIG.  AIG, which is now a government owned company, 
engages in SCF, which subjects certain financial activities, including 
investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. This 
specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial 
activities.  AIG itself publicly describes “Sharia” as “Islamic law based on 
the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet .” 

With the aid of taxpayer funds provided by Congress, AIG also employs a 
“Shariah Supervisory Committee.”  According to AIG, the role of its Sharia 
authority “is to review our operations, supervise its development of Islamic 
products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and our 
investments.” 

Shortly after filing the complaint in 2008, attorneys for the Obama 
administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the court to dismiss the 
lawsuit on behalf of the named defendants.  In a written opinion issued in May 
2009, the judge denied the request, holding that the lawsuit properly alleged a 
federal constitutional challenge to the use of taxpayer money to fund AIG’s 
Islamic religious activities.

In its request to dismiss the lawsuit, DOJ argued that the plaintiff, Kevin 
Murray, who is a federal taxpayer, lacked standing to bring the action.  And 
even if he did have standing, DOJ argued that the use of the bailout money to 
fund AIG’s operations did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First 
Amendment.  The court disagreed, noting, in relevant part, the following:

In this case, the fact that AIG is largely a secular entity is not dispositive: 
The question in an as-applied challenge is not whether the entity is of a 
religious character, but how it spends its grant. The circumstances of this 
case are historic, and the pressure upon the government to navigate this 
financial crisis is unfathomable.  Times of crisis, however, do not justify 
departure from the Constitution.  In this case, the United States government 
has a majority interest in AIG.  AIG utilizes consolidated financing whereby 
all funds flow through a single port to support all of its activities, 
including Sharia-compliant financing.  Pursuant to the EESA, the government has 
injected AIG with tens of billions of dollars, without restricting or tracking 
how this considerable sum of money is spent.  At least two of AIG’s subsidiary 
companies practice Sharia-compliant financing, one of which was unveiled after 
the influx of government cash. . . Finally, after the government acquired a 
majority interest in AIG and contributed substantial funds to AIG for 
operational purposes, the government co-sponsored a forum entitled “Islamic 
Finance 101.”  These facts, taken together, raise a question of whether the 
government’s involvement with AIG has created the effect of promoting religion 
and sufficiently raise Plaintiff’s claim beyond the speculative level, 
warranting dismissal inappropriate at this stage in the proceedings.

Following this favorable ruling, the parties engaged in discovery.  During 
discovery, TMLC took depositions, acquired numerous sworn affidavits from AIG 
and many of its subsidiaries, and acquired thousands of documents.  This 
voluminous evidence was filed with the court in support of TMLC’s motion for 
summary judgment—a request that the court enter final judgment in its favor 
because there is no genuine issue of material fact and TMLC should prevail as a 
matter of law.

On January 14, 2011, the court reversed its earlier position and ruled against 
Plaintiff Murray, claiming that there was no evidence presented of religious 
indoctrination, and if there were such evidence, the indoctrination could not 
be attributed to the federal government and besides, the amount of federal 
money that was used to support SCF—$153 million—was “de minimus” in light of 
the large sum of tax money the federal government actually gave to AIG—$47.5 
billion.

Robert Muise, Senior Trial Counsel for TMLC, commented: “Based on the 
incredible amount of evidence presented, much of which DOJ could not refute , 
and in light of the strength of the court’s prior ruling, we expected the court 
to ultimately rule in our favor and hold that the federal government violated 
the U.S. Constitution by using federal tax money to fund Islamic religious 
activities.  As soon as we read the court’s adverse opinion, we filed an 
immediate appeal.”

AIG - Star & CrescentIn addition to the court’s remarkable claim that $153 
million in tax money is “de minimis, ” the court stated the following: “In the 
absence of evidence showing that AIG’s development and sale of SCF products has 
resulted in the instruction of religious beliefs for the purpose of instilling 
those beliefs in others or furthering a religious mission, Plaintiff has failed 
to demonstrate that a reasonable observer could conclude that AIG has engaged 
in religious indoctrination by supplying SCF products.”

In the court filings, however, TMLC presented overwhelming and un-rebutted 
evidence from experts and AIG itself to demonstrate that AIG, with the direct 
support of the U.S. Government, was engaging in religious indoctrination.  
Specifically, in addition to AIG’s own description of its Islamic financing as 
based upon Sharia and Sharia in turn described as “Islamic law based on Quran 
and the teachings of the Prophet (PBUH), ” AIG promotes Sharia and SCF as a way 
to proselytize non-Muslims through an “ethical product” and a “new way of 
life.”  Indeed, in the U.S. Government’s filings in the case, it admitted that 
SCF involves “a theological proposition.”

Muise concluded: “Apparently, the court does not believe that the federal 
government violates the U.S. Constitution when it provides $153 million in 
taxpayer money to support Islamic religious activities.  This is certainly more 
than the ‘one pence’ James Madison warned about when he helped craft the First 
Amendment, and I am sure this decision is news for all of the Christian and 
Jewish organizations and businesses that are prevented from receiving a dime of 
federal tax money to support their religious activities.”

The appeal is expected to take at least a year to complete.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage 
and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored 
family values, and the sanctity of human life.  It supports a strong national 
defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America.  The Law 
Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related 
activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported 
by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is 
recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  You may reach the 
Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at  
<http://www.thomasmore.org/> www.thomasmore.org.









 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
discuss-os...@yahoogroups.com.
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
biso...@intellnet.org

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:    osint-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
  Unsubscribe:  osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    osint-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
    osint-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    osint-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to