Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Thursday slammed the anti-Muslim “crazies” who have raised objections to his nomination of a Muslim lawyer to become a state Superior Court judge.

“Ignorance is behind the criticism of Sohail Mohammad,” Christie said in response to a reporter’s question at a Thursday press conference. “Sohail Mohammad is an extraordinary American who is an outstanding lawyer and played an integral role in the post-September 11th period in building bridges between the Muslim American community in this state and law enforcement.”

Critics have used the very track record Christie cited to depict Mohammad, an Indian-American, as a radical unfit for the bench. Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism in January derided Mohammad as a “longtime mouthpiece for radical Islamists”. Emerson traced Mohammad’s career back to his work as an immigration lawyer on behalf of Arab men who were detained after 9/11.

Christie pointed out that many people were wrongly arrested during that time, and that none of Mohammad’s post-9/11 clients were charged with crimes of terrorism. Christie added that Mohammad set up “dozens of meetings” between government and law enforcement officials and members of the Muslim-American community to build lines of trust.

A reporter asked Christie a question about Shariah law, which only fired up the governor’s frustration. “Shariah law has nothing to do with this at all. It’s crazy. It’s crazy. The guy is an American citizen … and has never been accused of doing anything but honorably and zealously acquitting the oath he took when he became a lawyer…. This Shariah law business is crap. It’s just crazy. And I’m tired of dealing with the crazies. It’s just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background…. I’m happy that he’s willing to serve after all this baloney.”

Hatewatch, 4 August 2011

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVv7aADm5Zw

Press TV reports on Pamela Geller’s new book Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

People for the American Way press release

Right-Wing extremists are leading a sustained attack against American Muslims, attempting to prevent them from freely practicing their religion, curtail their political rights, and in some cases, compel their deportation, according to a new report by People For the American Way. The report lays out how the Right Wing is using a set of specific strategies to stir up destructive fears, and as a result are putting our fundamental tradition of equality and justice at risk. The report, The Right Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism, identifies the scare tactics used by the Right Wing to conjure up anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States and outlines some ways that concerned Americans can push back against anti-Muslim extremism.

“Right-wing activists, elected officials and even some presidential candidates have launched an overt assault on American Muslims, using a religious minority as a scapegoat for any number of national fears and frustrations,” said Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way. “In doing so, they compromise some of our dearest national values. Anti-Muslim extremists and the political leaders who repeat their talking points are spreading baseless and destructive fears and explicitly disregarding the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion and equal treatment under the law.”

The report discusses eight strategies employed by anti-Muslim activists to cast doubt on the validity of Islam as a religion and the integrity of American Muslims in order to justify prejudice and illegal discrimination:

• Framing American Muslims as dangerous to America
• Twisting statistics and using fake research to “prove” the Muslim threat
• Inventing the danger of “creeping Sharia”
• Justifying taking away freedoms and liberties from Muslims in order to “defend liberty”
• Denying the validity of Islam as a religion
• Arguing that Muslims have no First Amendment rights under the Constitution
• Linking anti-Muslim prejudice to anti-Obama rhetoric
• Slandering progressives and non-Christians as unholy and anti-American

The report is available here.

Over the past few years, anti-Sharia organizations and politicians have introduced versions of anti-Sharia legislation in 26 states – with some bills expressly singling out Sharia law for condemnation, and others sweeping Islamic law under broader categories of “foreign” or “international” law. The ACLU is currently working to overturn an example of this kind of legislation in Oklahoma.

The anti-Sharia movement would have you believe that Islamic law is encroaching on our legal system and is a threat to an American way of life.

This is simply not true, and in fact the court cases cited by anti-Muslim groups as symptoms of some kind of “Muslim threat” actually show the opposite. Courts treat lawsuits that are brought by Muslims or that address the Islamic faith in the same way that they deal with similar claims brought by people of other faiths or that involve no religion at all. The cases show that protections already exist in our legal system to ensure that courts do not become wrongly entangled with religion or improperly consider, defer to, or apply religious law where it would violate basic principles of U.S. federal or state policy.

Prohibiting courts from considering Islamic law serves only one purpose: to bar Muslims from having the same rights and access to the courts as any other individuals. Attempts to prevent courts from considering international or foreign law suffer from constitutional flaws and undermine the ability of courts to interpret laws and treaties regarding global business, international human rights and family law issues such as international marriages and adoptions.

Daniel Mach, Director of the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, said today in a statement:

“The anti-Sharia law movement clearly seeks to ride the recent wave of anti-Muslim bias in this country, pushing laws that are rooted in the baseless idea that U.S. Muslims wish to impose Islamic law on American courts. Proponents of these misguided measures rely on the ugly implication that anything Islamic is inherently un-American, pressing for a legislative solution to a non-existent problem.”

ACLU Blog of Rights, 1 August 2011