Say No To Sohail “Sharia Law” Mohammed
Today Conservative New Jersey is proud to introduce our newest contributor, Susan Jarema. Susan has taken it upon herself to form a group known as “Woman Against Sharia Law”. This post is from a letter she wrote to the Bergen Record. From all of CNJ, welcome aboard Sue!
I testified in opposition to the nomination of Sohail Mohammed to the Superior Court of New Jersey during the State Senate Judicial Committee hearing on June 27. The reason why is the concern of many citizens across the United States: will such Muslim judicial appointees support or oppose Shariah Law that would adversely affect our precious Constitutional court system of the United States as it has in England and other countries? In fact, Senator Cardinale rightfully asked Mr. Mohammed if he would protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Mohammed answered: “Yes”. However, many of us believe that a substantial number of Muslims, (Mr. Mohammed is a Muslim from India), can lie in order to proselytize and protect the Islamic faith. Further, when Mr. Mohammed was asked to explain, Jihad, he responded in some way to represent the earlier and more peaceful form of the Qur’an whereby Jihad references an inner spiritual seeking. On the other hand, in the latter part of the Qur’an, where the Islamic prophet, Mohammed, took a decidedly violent turn in his writings, Jihad represents holy war with infidels. Due to “abrogation”, the latter part of the Qur’an, the more violent part, abrogates the earlier, and takes precedence of the former, more peaceful part of the Qur’an. Why Mr. Mohammed failed to reveal the dual meanings of Jihad remains questionable.
Mr. Mohammed cannot recuse himself from a case just because it involves Shariah Law. Therefore, a serious question remains how he will rule in a case that involves New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) involving a Muslim or a Shariah compliant policy. Take for example the new Delta policy, whereby someone who is Jewish, or has a Jewish stamp on his passport, cannot fly into Saudi Arabia. Should someone file suit in a New Jersey court that he or she is being discriminated against by such practice, how would Mr. Mohammed rule? More basically, according to the Center for Security Policy, an organization led by a former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy under President Ronald Reagan, Shariah Law has been involved in court cases in 23 states including New Jersey. Nationally, at the trial court level, 15 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah. At the Appellate Court level there were 12 cases. These cases involved marriage law; child custody; Shariah Contract; Shariah Doctrine; Shariah Property Law; and Due Process/Equal Protection. In other words, Shariah Law can be discussed at the Superior Court level.
During the trial, Mr. Mohammed revealed that his sole trial experience was to represent a man in a marriage situation. Therefore, we have no experience to point to that could indicate how, as a Muslim, he would defend the rights of Muslim women when, under Shariah, they have none. In fact, Canadian women have successfully avoided the implementation of Shariah law in their country as they do not want to lose their children or inheritance if they seek divorce, nor be subject to a husband’s abuse. Such is rampant in Muslim countries.
Mr. Mohammed was proud to cite he flew his wife and children back to America from India for his judicial committee hearing. Some on the Committee referenced that he was, apparently, a good father and husband. But, although that’s lovely, it’s not a substantive reason to appoint anyone to a judgeship whether they be Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, Catholic, Christian, atheist, agnostic, etc. Mr. Mohammed only needs to have substantial experience as a trial lawyer, (he does not), and a true allegiance to support, protect and defend the Constitutions of the United States and the State of New Jersey. As he will probably place his hand on the Qu’ran when he takes his Oath of Office, it’s hard for me to see how he can do that when half of that text speaks of a holy war against “infidels” and where Islamic women remain subject to Shariah Law.
I’m thankful that Senator Cardinale and a couple of other Senators asked serious questions that needed to be surfaced at the hearing. Not to have done that would be insensitive, and shabby, to women’s rights. It’s known around the world that women, in particular, have suffered harsh treatment under Shariah Law. This nominee needs to prove he can be a judge and ignore Shariah in all of his decisions.