This whole narrative is one big fat lie. You can leave your estate and your property to whomever you wish, and however you want. This is not about that. The dissembler professor from Temple University, Khalid Blankenship, is either clueless or complicit. This is what is teaching your children.
To quote my own testimony before the Alaska legislature:
Legislation that "prohibits the violation of an individual's right under the Constitution of the State of Alaska or the United States Constitution.” This very simple and clear cut legislation should be the proverbial no brainer. And yet the fact that it being met by so much resistance both overt and covert indicates how very needed it is.
How can anyone oppose a law that seeks to prevent foreign laws from undermining fundamental constitutional liberties? We all accept that state and federal const’l rights to a jury trial in CIVIL cases can be waived almost by default (thus two parties agreeing to be bound by German or French law where there is no jury trial right in a civil matter) would not be affected by the bill since the jury trial right is per the law waived by default.
But there is no jurisprudence in the federal system and none in any state that would allow a party to waive Equal Protection—that is, could an african american agree to be discriminated against by the state? Absolutely not, so why would we allow a party to “waive” an equal protection claim in court where the state’s police power is being used to enforce an offensive foreign law?
We now have groups that has ever come to this country with a ready-made model of society and government they believe to be superior to what we have here and are working to institute it.
For example, Islamic law contravenes American freedoms in numerous particulars.
Legal expert David Yerushalmi, a pioneering legal authority in the drafting of such state laws, points out that “the global jihad leadership against which we have aligned most of our military and intelligence resources since 9/11 informs us in Arabic, Pashtu, Urdu, Persian, and even in English that the global jihad against the West is fundamentally directed and determined by Islamic law, or sharia. The jihad leaders further tell us that their ultimate goal, in addition to that of the ‘defensive jihad’ incumbent on every Muslim to rid the Islamic world of an occupying infidel presence is the implementation of sharia law as the law of the land in any place Muslims step foot.”
“Surveys in the Muslim world consistently evidence that somewhere between 50% to 70% of the global Muslim community desires to create a unified Caliphate for all Muslims and to order that political hegemony according to a strict al Qaeda-like sharia.”
The separation of mosque and state is essential to preserving American freedom and our way of life. Yet the Islamic supremacists have made real inroads. We have seen over the last few years the encroachment of Islam on the secular marketplace. Muslims have demanded, and received, special accommodation in public schools, in the workplace, in our government, and in privately owned businesses.
One only needs to look at the disintegration of Europe and the establishment all over that continent of enclaves in which Sharia is enforced and the law of the land disregarded, to glimpse a bleak future made possible by “good intentions” and the failure of multiculturalism. In those areas of Europe, women and non-Muslims suffer institutionalized discrimination, and there is no freedom of speech or freedom of conscience.
It is time to stand up for American rule of law and individual rights for all.
This is an end run around the will of the people. The obfuscation and deliberate confusion is a tactic to defeat the prohibition of Islamic law in American courts and culture.
"Opponents in Philadelphia say bill on Sharia law unfair to Muslims," by Tom MacDonald for Newsworks:
A bill in Harrisburg that opponents say is targeted against Muslims has followers of that faith upset.
House Bill 2029 would ban Pennsylvania courts from considering any foreign legal code or system that isn't identical with the Constitution. Muslim activists say that it is specifically targeted against the practice of Sharia Law--a religious code for Muslims that has the power of law in some countries. Council on American-Islamic Relations Attorney Amara Chaudhry says this would block freedom of religious expression.
"This is not a new faith we are not a foreign faith and yes this dangerous, clearly stated discriminatory purpose on a publicly circulated document, you just don't get any more troubling than that," said Chaudhry.
Professor Khalid Blankinship of Temple University compares following Sharia to the Catholic teaching that divorce is not allowed.
"That would be like going into the Catholic Church and telling them that you can't marry people the way you want or saying you have to allow divorce of people even if the Pope ruled otherwise," said Blankinship.
State Representative Rosemarie Swanger of Lebanon County, who authored the bill, says it is designed to preserve rights of liberty that do not exist in some foreign legal systems. She has said recognizing foreign laws could allow women to be treated as second-class citizens. In a letter she sent to colleagues, Swanger called Sharia law "inherently hostile to our constitutional liberties."