Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label shariah law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shariah law. Show all posts

Sunday, May 28, 2017

Was Non-Halal Pizza Sold to Dearborn Michigan Man?


ALERT: Muslim Sues Little Caesars Pizza Over Sharia Law


146
A Muslim man is suing Little Caesars for $100 million after he says he was served and then accidentally ate pepperoni made with pork, a food prohibited by Islamic law.
The complaint says Mohamad Bazzi of Dearborn ordered halal pizza twice from the shop on Schaefer in Dearborn. The boxes were labeled “halal,” but the pies inside were topped with regular pepperoni.
Majed Moughni, Bazzi’s attorney, said he rushed to file the lawsuit Thursday, the eve of Ramadan, so no other Muslims would accidentally eat pork from the pizza shop during the holiday.
“It’s really upsetting,” Moughni said. “My clients want the public to know. Especially during Ramadan, it would be a travesty if Muslims … in Dearborn bought pizza from Little Caesars and discovered they were eating pork.”
He added that for a Muslim, consuming pork is “one of the worst sins you can do.”
Jill Proctor, a spokeswoman for Little Caesars said in a statement that the company believes the claim “is without merit.”
“Little Caesars cherishes our customers from all religions and cultures, and the communities we serve are very important to us. While we can’t comment on pending litigation, we take this claim very seriously,” Proctor said.
The lawsuit, filed in Wayne County Circuit Court, says the first incident happened March 20. Bazzi and his wife were midway through eating a pizza he had brought home from the shop when they realized it had pork pepperoni.
Bazzi knew it was pork because he used to work in a pizza place and knows the different types of pepperoni, Moughni said. He also said Bazzi’s wife could tell because she is a Catholic convert to Islam who grew up eating pork.
They “became sick to their stomach,” according to the lawsuit. Three days later, they filed a police report.
The second incident happened May 24, the day before the lawsuit was filed.
When Bazzi confronted the shop manager, according to the lawsuit, she told him at one point that Bazzi had asked an employee to put a halal sticker on the pizza box, a claim Moughni disputes. Bazzi secretly recorded the conversation.
Halal is the Muslim equivalent of Judaism’s kosher and requires that meat be prepared according to Islamic guidelines, such as reciting a prayer while the animal is cut.
“There’s different schools of Islamic law that allows for the eating of chicken and beef, but there is no such thing as halal pork. The pork itself is forbidden,” Moughni said.
The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and fraud. The case is against Little Caesars Pizza, Little Caesars Enterprises and the employees of the shop.
Moughni is seeking class-action status for the case.
The issue of non-halal food labeled as such has landed in court before. In 2011, McDonald’s was sued over claims that the fast-food restaurant was selling non-halal chicken it claimed was halal.
In some cases, employees at the Ford Road location in Dearborn were mistakenly giving non-halal products to customers who asked for halal ones.
The case was settled for $700,000. However, some Muslims, including a group led by Moughni, said the settlement money should have gone to the Muslims affected, not to organizations that were based in Detroit or not affiliated with Islam.
A judge at one point issued an injunction ordering Moughni not to talk about the settlement, but it was eventually lifted.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Where Are The Feminists? Either They Are Politically Correct, Afraid To Comment Or In Favor Of Sharia Law


VIDEO: Man Beats Woman Publicly in Brutal Shariah Law Punishment


 Print

A horrifying video published this week by Canadian journalist Tarek Fatah showed an Indonesian woman in a pink headscarf kneeling before a crowd of mostly men who then erupted into cheers as a masked flogger struck her across the back with a cane until she collapsed to the ground in aching pain.
Reportedly recorded in 2015, the video was a demonstration of what Fatah described as “(l)ashing as public entertainment” in Aceh, which, according to The Guardian, is the only province in Indonesia that strictly abides by Shariah law.
This particular woman’s crime was unknown, according to the U.K. Daily Mail, which added that in Shariah-law nations, simply taking a stroll without a male guardian is punishable with beatings as severe as this.

The video of what occurred to her may be seen below, though we must warn you that it is HIGHLY GRAPHIC:




Tarek Fatah 
✔@TarekFatah
This is isn't  or . It's 's Sharia-ruled  province. Lashing as public entertainment
5:23 AM - 8 Feb 2017 · New Delhi, India

After the lashing, the woman was carried away by paramedics.
While there have seen been some cries of outrage at Shariah crimes against women — particularly from conservatives — there has been total and utter silence from the left, as was noted by The Daily Wire commentator Amanda Prestigiacomo.
“(T)here was no planned march, no statement, no condemnation,” she wrote. “Instead, the Women’s March Twitter account was littered with applause for the ‘resistance’ to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, a woman who is a proponent of giving poor children school choice.”
“If those who align themselves with the Women’s March are dedicated to ‘intersectional’ women’s issues, if they care so deeply about gender equality, where is the condemnation of such brutal female oppression, as seen in this video?” she continued. “Of course, here in reality, we all know this will never happen. Islam is a no-go zone for feminists.”

Exactly.
Liberal feminists have no problem moaning about the alleged oppression imposed on them by U.S. President Donald Trump, who in reality has done absolutely nothing to interfere in their constitutional rights. But they are reticent about addressing the real and oftentimes gruesome oppression experienced by women in Muslim countries.
Why is this? Is it that liberal feminists lack the courage to speak out against Islam? Or is it rather that they have become so blinded in their ignorance and petulance that they genuinely cannot recognize the inherent evil of a woman being publicly lashed in front of men for disobeying a system of law that in itself is oppressive and just plain wrong?
Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about what happened to this woman in Indonesia.
What do you think about the left's sickening refusal to address this sort of REAL oppression?
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

The Day Is Coming When Sharia Law Will Be The Rule Of Law



American Law? Or Christian Law, Muslim Law, Jewish Law?

by 
  • "[A] basic American legal principle [is]: American courts apply American law, rather than one rule for Muslims, one rule for Christians, one rule for Jews, and so on." — Eugene Volokh, First Amendment law professor at UCLA.
  • Allowing Islamic shariah law to substitute for state law regarding inheritance and related matters would undercut the values of equal protection of the laws and equality before the law, and in many instances, would violate American law.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has rejected an argument that would essentially have required a lower court to divide the proceeds of a wrongful-death suit under shariah (Islamic law) rules governing inheritance. The decision was based on technical grounds, leaving open the question of whether a state court would apply shariah in the future.
Nadir Ibrahim Ombabi, a 57-year-old taxi driver, was killed October 29, 2012, in a car accident outside Minneapolis. Ombabi was a native of Sudan, where he was a family doctor, and was working on becoming certified as a medical doctor in the U.S. when he died. He was active in Minnesota's Sudanese community.
Ombabi left behind a wife, mother, brother, and sisters. He married Nariman Sirag Elsayed Khalil in Sudan, under Islamic law. Reportedly, she was still living in Africa when Ombabi died, and he would "often send back money to help his family." His brother was living in California and a sister in Canada.
Ombabi's next of kin brought a wrongful-death claim, which was settled for $183,000. Minnesota law requires the proceeds of a wrongful-death suit to be given to "the surviving spouse and next of kin, proportionate to the pecuniary loss severally suffered by the death."
Next of kin are basically everyone who qualifies as a potential heir under the state's intestacy law. States have laws governing how to distribute property when a person dies without leaving a will. In Minnesota, if the decedent has no children (as seems true of Ombabi), or if all of his children are also children of his widow, the widow inherits the entire estate. If, and only if, the decedent leaves neither spouse nor children, the estate passes to his parents. If he leaves no parents either, it goes to his brothers and/or sisters.
The district court found "no credible evidence to prove Mr. Ombabi's mother, brother, or sisters experienced a pecuniary loss, or more importantly what that pecuniary loss is, because of Mr. Ombabi's passing." It ordered that all of the proceeds (less expenses) be given to Ombabi's widow, Khalil.
Ombabi's brother objected that the court should have divided the proceeds under Islamic law, giving the widow only 25%, Ombabi's mother's estate 16.7%, and the balance distributed among Ombabi's siblings, with the brother receiving twice as much as each sister. He based this on the claim that "the law of all parties (the decedent, his widow and decedent's next of kin) is the Islamic Law and they are all Muslims and follow the specifics of the religion."
The court rejected that argument, on the grounds that it was unsupported by legal authority or argument, and that it was unclear whether it had been raised in the lower court. As a general rule, new issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal.
The court did not prohibit application of shariah to wrongful death suits or other cases. It only held that it found no legal or factual support that would justify applying it to Ombabi's case.
As First Amendment law professor Eugene Volokh commented:
Sometimes American law does allow the implementation of foreign legal rules, or religious legal rules. A contract might, for instance, call for applying the law of Sudan, or a will might specify that the property be distributed one-fourth to the widow, one-sixth to the parents, one-sixth each to the three brothers, and one-twelfth to the one sister (whether or not that's the sharia-mandated split). A court may well enforce such provisions, subject to any constraints imposed by American public policy. ... But there has to be an American law principle calling for such application of foreign law. And in this case, there was no such principle.
Even where the party or parties have agreed to apply certain rules, American courts will refuse to enforce them if they violate American law or certain public policies. For example, American courts will no longer enforce covenants restricting the sale of land to exclude black purchasers, because doing so would effectively violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Another example: although Americans are generally free to bequeath their property as they see fit, they are not entirely free. In Minnesota, a wife or husband who lives in the state and who has been married to her or his spouse for at least 15 years is entitled to claim half of the spouse's estate (called an elective share), even if the spouse's will leaves less. That is significantly more than the 25% share to which shariah law evidently entitled Ombabi's widow (although, on the other hand, the elective share of a newlywed in Minnesota is considerably less than a wife's share under shariah).
In this case, the widow evidently lived in Sudan (where Muslim law applied), so she would not have been entitled to make a claim under Minnesota's elective share in any case.
Still, it remains to be seen whether state courts would apply shariah law, if the issue were timely raised and properly argued. Volokh suggests the court's decision was "influenced by a basic American legal principle: American courts apply American law, rather than one rule for Muslims, one rule for Christians, one rule for Jews, and so on." Notwithstanding certain exceptions, American courts also generally apply the same law to men and women.
Allowing Islamic shariah law to substitute for state law regarding inheritance and related matters would undercut the values of equal protection of the laws and equality before the law, and in many instances, would violate American law.


Johanna Markind is an attorney who writes about public policy and criminal justice.

© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, September 12, 2016

Is This What "Fundamentally Change America" Means?


DHS WHISTLEBLOWER: MUSLIMS WAGING 'SETTLEMENT JIHAD' ON U.S.

'This kind of thing is happening all over the country'


image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/01/Paul-Bremmer_avatar.jpg
author-image PAUL BREMMER About | Email | Archive

rss feed Subscribe to feed

537
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/09/Haney-ACT-FB.jpg
Former Department of Homeland Security officer Philip Haney at the ACT for America 2016 Conference (Photo: Facebook / ACT for America)
Former Department of Homeland Security officer Philip Haney at the ACT for America 2016 Conference (Photo: Facebook / ACT for America)
WASHINGTON – Muslims from around the world are coming to America to wage “settlement jihad” and implement Shariah law, a Department of Homeland security whistleblower warns.
The eye-opening observations were made by former Department of Homeland Security officer Philip Haney at the ACT for America 2016 Conference Tuesday.
Haney warned that most Muslims do not migrate to America with the intention of assimilating into American culture.
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/05/Philip-Haney.jpg
Philip B. Haney
Philip B. Haney
“The observant Muslim base is the reason for civilizational and/or settlement jihad,” he said. “That is why they are immigrating to America, to come and coalesce into one solid unit with the intention – and it is intentional – to implement Shariah law, which according to Islamic theology is the grace and gift to mankind.”
As a Customs and Border Protection officer, Haney gathered a plethora of valuable intelligence on the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic organizations. However, in 2009 his superiors ordered him to eliminate critical “linking information” from about 820 records he had entered into CBP’s internal database.
Haney said the Obama administration refused to investigate Muslim Brotherhood members as terrorists because it relied on the Brotherhood and other Muslim groups with ties to terrorism to help shape U.S. counter-terrorism policy. The Muslim Brotherhood is a supremacist group known for establishing scores of fronts – including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR – that pose as civil rights organizations. The Brotherhood’s agenda is laid out in a document introduced into evidence by federal prosecutors during the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history, U.S. vs. Holy Land Foundation, in 2007-08. Obama’s former Attorney General Eric Holder abruptly ended the trial despite its success in shutting down a prime funding source for Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization.

In 2012, the administration purged all 67 of Haney’s records dealing with Muslims associated with the Tablighi Jamaat movement. The administration completely erased the records from the database and then investigated Haney for entering the information into the system, which was his job.
Haney chronicled his struggle to expose the truth of jihad and the administration’s effort to stop him in his book, “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad.”
Haney warned the ACT for America audience of existential threats facing America from enemies both foreign and domestic – specifically, the global Islamic movement and progressive leftists. He said the intention of these enemies is “to alter or to abolish” the U.S. government, words which are ironically found in the Declaration of Independence.
Haney noted Shariah precludes any form of human law, including the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, he urges opponents of Islamization to point to the Constitution as the reason for their opposition.
“If you build your rebuttal and your strategy on our founding documents by recognizing what they intend to do, which is to alter or abolish our current form of government, it puts you on a solid foundation, immunizing you from a lot of charges of Islamophobic, racist bigotry, because after all, you’re defending the documents our country was founded on,” Haney reasoned.
Not only do Islamic supremacists wish to abolish the Constitution, according to Haney, but progressive leftists seek to fundamentally alter America by making it more diverse.
This “diversity” was the impetus behind the Obama administration’s massive push to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees in the U.S. by Sept. 30, a goal Obama reached well ahead of schedule.
As WND has previously reported, more than 98 percent of the Syrians who arrived in fiscal year 2016 were Sunni Muslim.
Haney noted the refugee admissions program is very secretive, as the federal government and resettlement contractors often do not alert local officials or local residents when they plan to place refugees in a certain town.
VIDEO: MD. MAN GOT THOUSANDS FROM ISLAMIC STATE: DOJ

Play
Current Time0:59
/
Duration Time1:13
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
0:59
Fullscreen
00:00
Mute
“I ask you, my fellow Americans: If this is such a noble cause, then why are they using such deceitful practices to do it?” Haney asked.
He listed cities where refugees have been placed without the consent of the locals, including Rutland, Vermont; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Emporia, Kansas; and Grand Rapids, Minnesota.
“This kind of thing is happening all over the country: an abrogation of due process and constitutional principles happening right in front of us,” Haney said. “They are aiding and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal of settlement jihad, and it’s happening right in front of us.”
As Haney noted, Americans have been told many times there is no way to effectively vet the Syrian refugees, yet DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson claims the U.S. must give voice to the plight of Muslims. That attitude disgusts Haney.
“They’re not even doing the most basic law enforcement approach to protecting our welfare and the integrity of our borders, but they have morphed totally into a civil rights and civil liberties advocacy group,” Haney said. “And anybody who stands in their way will become the violent extremist.”
Haney issued a strong warning to government officials who fail to do their utmost to protect America from the threats it faces.
“History is a fearsome woman,” he cautioned. “If she fastens her eye on you, and you are on the wrong side of history, she will turn you into a stone.”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 WND

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/dhs-whistleblower-muslims-waging-settlement-jihad-on-u-s/#KoFlEYbohWWAtBa7.99
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)