Human Rights First Human Rights First

Is Congress Really Serious About Domestic Radicalism?

8-1-2011

By Daphne Eviatar
Senior Associate, Law and Security

As Rep. Peter King (R-NY) led his latest hearing about the radicalization of Muslims in the United States last week, it turns out a radical of a different sort, based in Brooklyn, was plotting to spread his anti-Muslim message across the United States.

The New York Times revealed on Sunday that a Brooklyn attorney named David Yerushalmi has spearheaded the movement across the country to rid the United States of Sharia — the traditional Muslim law — notwithstanding that except in some private contracts, Sharia is irrelevant in this country.

The Anti-Defamation League has describedYerushalmi as having a record of “anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black bigotry.” Still, supported by conservative policy organizations, Yerushalmi has written reports, filed lawsuits and drafted model legislation that has so far encouraged fifteen different states to propose laws that would ban the use of Sharia (and international law) from being applied in their states. The Times recounts that his movement, assisted by hawkish neoconservative policy commentators such as Frank Gaffney (who argued that President Obama might secretly be Muslim), has influenced such prominent political figures as former CIA director James Woolsey and Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Michelle Bachmann. Bachmann recently signed a pledge rejecting Islamic law and its “totalitarian control.”

The anti-Sharia movement has even inspired the actor Chuck Norris to take up the cause, writing on WorldNetDaily that Sharia is quietly creeping into the United States “like a frog boiled in a kettle by a slow simmer.”

In fact, Sharia has no influence whatsoever on state or U.S. law; the U.S. Constitution prohibits that. Religious people have always had the option of using Sharia – or Jewish or Christian religious laws, for that matter — as the basis of their private contracts if they so choose, so long as it doesn’t violate civil laws. Banning the use of Sharia would not only be blatantly discriminatory against one religious group — as a federal court in Oklahoma recently concluded — but could disrupt major commercial transactions between U.S. corporations and those in Islamic countries.

More importantly, the anti-Sharia movement sweeping across the country is whipping up a dangerous anti-Islamic fervor, exacerbated by King’s hearings.

The consequences were evident when the Norwegian right-wing extremist Anders Breivik bombed Norway government buildings and massacred nearly 80 children in a summer camp, and U.S. journalists immediately assumed it was the act of Muslims.

On Fox News, Laura Ingraham said it “appeared to be the work, again, of Muslim extremists.”

The Washington Post‘s Jennifer Rubin wrote: “This is a sober reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists.”

As Stephen Colbert observed: “By going with their guts, these journalists were able to get the story they wanted by scooping reality.”

Pushing the story they want regardless of reality seems to be the direction some in Congress are taking today. Last week, Reps. King and Frank Wolf (R-Va.) called for a new “9/11 Commission” to investigate the “growing threat” of “domestic radicalization.” Judging by the focus of the three hearings he’s held on the subject already, King clearly meant Muslim extremism, though he was careful not to say it.

Yet how seriously do King and his fellow House members really take this threat? While railing about the problem in public, as Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) noted at King’s hearing last week, Congress is simultaneously threatening to slash funding for local law enforcement programs that work with Muslim-American communities across the country to prevent just such radicalization.

Meanwhile, a Department of Homeland Security report on the dangerous growth of right-wing extremism in the United States was withdrawn following an outcry in 2009 from conservative politicians and pundits. DHS reportedly gutted its domestic terrorism analysis unit shortly afterwards.

Held hostage to the radical politics of certain of its members, the current Congress is unlikely to investigate the spread of right-wing extremism that’s promoting destructive anti-Sharia laws across the nation and encouraging the sort of hateful ideology that is so readily consumed by murderers like Anders Breivik.

Fortunately, the Times has begun to do just that.


  • tara

    Daphne, you idiot, this country is under no obligation to “not offend” others by allowing them to come here and create their own laws.

    You brainwashed people never define in your propagandist articles, what Sharia law actually is, do you?

    Gee…I wonder why that is….

    You wouldn’t be trying to deliberately spread misinformation, now would you? How much money were you paid to start this blog?

  • Nikos

    Well need we say more, these liberals will be the end of this country- they are so blinded by their ambitions they cannot even see the obvious staring them in the face. All I had to read was a quotation from the NY Times- the paper that labeled the Norway massacre as a “Christian Fundamentalist” within 24 hours of the attacks and did their best to link him with the act based Christianity. Then the suspect arrested in Texas planning a new massacre in Ft Hood was only referred to as a Muslim once in a lengthy article. The media has been sucked into the lies of the peaceful Muslim folk. Just take a look at London and all of Europe, are those people there that emigrated to the country out for peace really? London, Italy, Germany, Greece,Spain, Norway, Sweden, Russia, China, Australia and thats just a few to name. Can you choose any other religion as they refer to it as, that is causing the global chaos, hatred, murder, violence and intolerance? Its funny because the liberals that protect the Muslims will be the first victims of the peaceful religion. The is the new regime of Nazis in our midst, and their goal is clear and concise world domination for peace.

  • Nikos

    And to defend Islam under the banner of HUMAN RIGHTS pretty much says it all- its laughable.

  • eslaporte

    Thanks for this article. As you can see by the responses, there is a lot of work to do. We should also note that the Constitution also protects us from others’ religious laws.
    The fact is the the various religious faiths use their own laws in their faith communities. We use cannon law in the Catholic church, and it applies only to Catholics. Likewise, sharia law applies only to Muslim and Muslim communities, and is NOT the harsh forms, but usually banking practices and interpersonal disputes.
    The Southern Poverty Law Center believes that the domestic terrorism threat in the US comes from the radical rights, not the Muslim community.
    Thanks for a great article and a wonderful site!