Sharia Lobby Shifts into 5th Gear

Slow down, moving too fast, got to make the U.S. last…

by Alyssa A. Lappen
Family Security Matters | Sept. 7, 2011

Sharia advocates desperately want to convince legislators and the public that Islamic law is plain vanilla — and totally nonthreatening to existing U.S. legal codes. Notwithstanding a nationwide Muslim Brotherhood-backed pro-sharia push, nothing could be further from the truth.

“There are many unpleasant doctrines within Islam,” including its “repugnant” criminal code, honor killings, female genital cutting, and a Quranic verse Muslim clerics often cite, proclaiming “wives as a tilth unto you” (2:223), to deny the existence of marital rape.[1]

So allowed sharia professor Sadiq Reza at an Aug. 25-26 New York Law School (NYLS) conference. Any attempt to enforce its criminal code, he added, “would violate Constitutional law.” He insisted, though, that western Muslims don’t “favor” these aspects of Islam and none seek to impose them. Evidence that they do abounds (here, here, here, here, here) but Reza said his broad web search found none.

Northwestern University Islamic law professor Kristen Stilt, too, disdained sharia criticism as “lunacy.” And University of Toronto Islamic law professor Mohammed Fadel referred the audience to a glossy, Soros-funded condemnation of skeptics, breathlessly entitled “Fear, Inc.” to persuade the gullible.

Soon afterward, journalist Joseph Klein recalled some points of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood “scholar” Yusuf Qaradawi, revered by the Islamic world — and “Fear, Inc.” co-author Wajahat Ali. Qaradawi identifies fully with sharia as described by former CIA director R. James Woolsey and fellow so-called hate mongers headed by Center for Security Policy CEO Frank Gaffney, not Ali and his co-detractors. Qaradawi considers charity “jihad with money, because God has ordered us to fight enemies with our lives and our money,” as I noted in fall 2007. Like the MB-backed Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Qaradawi also seeks to internationally criminalize insults to Islam or Mohammed.

CSP’s sharia description is quite correct — not the “hate” or “lunacy” that Reza, Ali, Stilt and Fadel call it. Sharia is indeed a

“complete way of life” (social, cultural, military, religious, and political), governed from cradle to grave by Islamic law… Shariah is, moreover, a doctrine that mandates the rule of Allah over all aspects of society.”

Despite all sharia’s sobering negatives, orchestrated campaigns to hype it and smear its critics — with Reza in a vocal role — have worked their expected magic. Days after NYLS’s pro-sharia confab, in a Sept. 2 New York Times op-ed, Yale assistant professor Eliyahu Stern dutifully parroted the line of former Harvard Custodian of Two Holy Mosques prof. Frank Vogel, who thinks sharia “quite brilliant.” (On Sept. 3, its shine likewise compelled an unasked Dutch cleric, to “invite” Queen Beatrix to Islam.)

One might think a Yale assistant professor or the Times would check their facts prior to publication. One would be wrong. True enough, over 12 U.S. states are currently considering legislation that would outlaw using laws alien to U.S. foundational precepts in American courts. But Stern misspoke. A “bill recently passed by the Tennessee General Assembly equates Shariah with a set of rules that promote ‘the destruction of the national existence of the United States’,” he incorrectly groused.

Stern cited the summary of a proposed Tennessee bill version not actually passed into law. The real banana, Material Support to Designated Entities Act of 2011 (House Bill No. 1353), signed into Tennessee law Jun. 16, 2011 to amend its criminal code on terrorism, never once mentions the words “sharia,” “Muslim,” “Islam,” or “Islamic law.” Nor does American and Tennessee Laws for Tennessee Courts, House Bill No. 3768, signed into Tennessee Public Chapter 983 in May 2010, to address foreign laws containing discriminatory or unequal precepts or clauses otherwise alien to U.S. and state civil, criminal and Constitutional laws and public policies.Yet — evidently, without any independent study of sharia — Stern admonished its U.S. critics to forgo their Constitutional rights to free speech, and worse, allow and accept U.S. court recognition of Islamic law.

But also on Sept. 2, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition (ALIC) endorsed Michigan’s proposed HB4769 version of American Laws for American Courts.

Though apparently oblivious, in assuming a pro-sharia position, Stern effectively accepted a 7th century sharia dictate intended to suppress second class, non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis): Islamic rule prohibits non-Muslims especially, at dire risk, from criticizing Mohammed, Islam or sharia, what most Muslims project as divine, perfect, immutable — and indivisible — laws. (Several conference speakers unwittingly echoed Qaradawi and, while lauding sharia, also noted Islam’s total ban on its criticism.)

Put another way, the professors want American non-Muslim critics to comply with sharia and shut up.

Many women suffer real “oppression” in Muslim majority lands, for example, especially rape victims living under zina (extra-marital sex) or other sharia statutes, U. of Wisconsin law professor Asifa Quraishi admitted. Yet at every opportunity, including the NYLS conference, Quraishi has pushed hard to integrate sharia for Muslims into U.S. courts. Meanwhile, she’s advised international women’s rights advocates in Muslim majority countries that they would serve best “not to mention Islamic law at all.”

Quraishi blamed overseas human rights opposition to “sharia legislation (and sharia in general)” for exacerbating the plight of Muslim women. They “created an unwinnable and unnecessary war, of ‘sharia vs. women’s rights’.” That again said Muslims will not adapt, and infidels must follow sharia.

Here is the 7th century dictate to second class, non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis), writ large: non-Muslims’ criticism of Mohammed, Islam or sharia equals blasphemy. Such efforts to silence legitimate discussion render exceedingly troubling any consideration of separate and unequal sharia practices for use in U.S. courts. Already, too many U.S. Muslims ask and expect fellow citizens to censor themselves on sharia-related questions — or suffer bullying, and name calling best limited to pre-schoolers.

In 19th century Europe, Stern wrote, both political elites and philosophers embraced “fear that Jewish law bred disloyalty.” Immanuel Kant “argued that the particularistic nature of ‘Jewish legislation’ made Jews ‘hostile to all other peoples’,” Friedrich Hegel opposed Jewish dietary and other Mosaic laws as limits on an ability to identify with “fellow Prussians” or provide dutiful civil service and Bruno Bauer demanded that Jews renounce private religious rules in exchange for “full legal rights” and citizenship.

However, European Jewish history offers no logical reason for U.S. sharia critics to forgo their “full legal” and Constitutional rights to free speech or to allow Islamic law in secular courts. All citizens, including Muslims, already hold full rights, which no one seeks to revoke. Freedom requires no fixing.

To Muslims, sharia means justice, we’re told. Ironically, accepting such law in U.S. courts would create injustice, by making American Muslims more equal than others. They’d get exclusive rights, namely civil court access to religious cannon, not allowed to anyone else. This would substantially differ from the right to privately adhere (within the law) to religious cannon, which America has always allowed. Reinforcing this truth, the courageous U.S. men and women of AILC have clearly enumerated,

“the law should treat people of all faiths equally, while protecting Muslims and non-Muslims alike from extremist attempts to use the legal instrument of shari‘ah (also known as Islamic jurisprudence, or fiqh) to incubate, within the West, a highly politicized and dangerous understanding of Islam that is generally known as “Islamism,” or “radical Islam.”

“We see no evidence that statutes like HB 4769 will adversely impact the free exercise of our personal pietistic observance of Islam, which is not in conflict with the U.S. or Michigan constitutions. We recognize that not only Muslims, but also Jews, Christians and all people of faith need the government to protect their right to peaceful assembly, mediation and arbitration free of coercion, … within the bounds of American constitutional principles. Therefore, we stand together as a diverse coalition in support of any legislation that serves to protect and integrate our communities into the fabric of this great nation, by strengthening our accountability to the laws of the land, and the constitutions of the various states in which we live.”

If sharia were advanced, progressive, wonderful and “brilliant,” its truth and beauty could withstand all criticism and questions. But sharia raises a major reg flag, in banning free speech and inquiry. How it would play out in the U.S. is perhaps best examined by looks at Britain and Germany, where all sharia‘s ills stand fully exposed. One needs no PhD or LD to realize that officially accepting any part of a legal system so often demonstrably at odds with our own would, yes, prescribe genuine national disaster.

If anything, intense pressure from closet Muslim radicals for U.S. sanction of sharia should push every state that can to pass its own bill as quickly as possible.

________________________________
NOTES

[1] Andrew G. Bostom, “Sharia-sanctioned marital rape in Britain—and North America,” American Thinker,Oct. 15, 2010,, citing “Is there such a thing as marital rape?,” AMJAonline Jurisprudence Section, Association of Muslim Jurists in America, May 30, 2007, (first viewed 10/15/2010). Based on sharia, the influential Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America insists that marital rape is not a crime. The imams actually approve of felony attacks on wives. In 2007, a husband asked AMJA,“Is there such a thing as marital rape in the shariah?…is a man permitted to FORCE his wife to have sexual intercourse with him? … she is naashiz and unwilling to have coitus.” Fatwa # 2982 replied,

“For a wife to abandon the bed of her husband without excuse is haram [forbidden]. It is one of the major sins and the angels curse her until the morning as we have been informed by the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). She is considered nashiz [rebellious] under these circumstances. As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses; and Allah Almighty is more exalted and more knowledgeable.”

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Alyssa A. Lappen is a U.S.-based investigative journalist focusing on the Middle East and Islam. She is a former Senior Fellow for the American Center for Democracy (2005-2008); former Senior Editor of Institutional Investor (1993-1999), Working Woman (1991-1993) and Corporate Finance (1991). She was previously an Associate Editor at Forbes, where she worked upwards of 12 years (1978-1990), and an editor and staff writer at several other publications. She is also a poet. Her website is https://www.alyssaalappen.org.

All Articles, Poems & Commentaries Copyright © 1971-2021 Alyssa A. Lappen
All Rights Reserved.
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

Shari’a Finance: Cordless Bungee Jumping

by Alyssa A. Lappen
Pajamas Media | Dec. 18, 2007

Despite flashy headlines extolling Shari’a finance (Islamic banking) and Wall Street bankers jumping into the market, don’t follow. It’s like bungee jumping without a cord—or following lemmings over a cliff.

[12/18/2007 update: The banking industry has a short memory. In 1955, Citibank established the Saudi American Bank in Jeddah and added a Riyadh branch in 1966. But on February 12, 1980, Saudi Arabia confiscated Citibank’s business by royal decree, changed its name to Samba, and forced America’s premier bank to accept a subservient role, staffing its old bank–with a promise not to take any profits. That was shari’a law in action.]

Shari’a is “the path of Allah,” Nizam Yaquby told October conference-goers. But the purportedly “ethical” and “socially responsible” investing supports neither environmentalism nor “renewable” growth.

A 20th century construct, without basis in Islamic history, it often funds destruction. This “invented tradition” empowers Islamic radicals, writes USC King Faisal Professor of Islamic Thought, Timur Kuran, in Islam and Mammon: “Neither classical nor medieval Islamic civilization featured banks in the modern sense, let alone ‘Islamic’ banks’.”

Consider its downside risks.

With 19.99% of Nasdaq in hand, Bourse Dubai, the Dubai International Financial Exchange (DIFX) parent—certified for Islamic “purity”—by Bahrain’s Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAIOFI)—now plans to “rebrand” America’s international over-the-counter market as Nasdaq-DIFX.

What does this mean for presumably “unIslamic” Nasdaq companies (like Israeli generic drug giant, Teva)? Supposedly, Bourse Dubai will be “restricted to 5 percent voting rights” in Nasdaq. But in anticipation of Nasdaq-DIFX’s “rebranding,” DIFX named four new board members.

Boards of directors generally call the shots.

Meanwhile, Citigroup is receiving a second-generation, $7.5 billion Islamic-cash-bailout from the ultra-conservative United Arab Emirates (UAE) sheikdom, Abu Dhabi.

Its initial, 1991 Islamic-rescue followed billions in bad loans, single-quarter losses of $855 million, and U.S. Federal Reserve Board concerns about Citibank’s potential failure.

Suddenly, Citi’s then-Middle East business chief, Shaukat Aziz—fresh from seven years in Riyadh hobnobbing with Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal—convinced the latter to trade $600 million for shareholder-rights, Bangladesh’s Depardes reported in June 2004. He now has 3.6%. Aziz later headed Citicorp Islamic Bank, and maybe initiated Citi’s supposedly prospering Shari’a finance business.

But who controls whom? Today, doubling as Pakistan’s Finance and Prime Ministers, Aziz supports “Shariah compliant banking,” which the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) in 2005 strategically planned to promote “as a parallel system.” He’s discussed its potential with Bahraini Bank Alsalam CEO, Yousif Taqi.

Likewise, bin Talal wants to dominate U.S. businesses. Rather than boycott, “Arabs …stand more to benefit from maintaining trade ties with the US because the trade balance … is in our favor,” he told Saudi Arabia’s Arab News daily on May 1, 2002.

Both men’s ideas fit the 1928 cloth of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, whose disciples tailor-made it into shari’a finance—specifically to supersede Western banks, markets and democracies through “parallel economic” and financial institutions. It rests on shari’a—the 7th Century Qur’anic legal code developed by Mohammed’s followers—which clerics consider one, indivisible package, by definition seeking global Islamic supremacy and law.

With wife-beating, stoning women, dismembering thieves, hanging homosexuals, supremacist ideology and an annual head tax (jizya) on non-Muslim subjects—shari’a also commands Muslims to fund jihad (financial jihad—al Jihad bi-al-Mal). As in Qur’an 61:10-11, “strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives….” and Qur’an 49:15. “Financial Jihad [is]…more important…than self-sacrificing,” says Saudi cleric and Muslim Brother Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi.

The 1982 Muslim Brotherhood document, “Towards a Worldwide Strategy for Islamic Policy”—discovered by Swiss police in November 2001 and known as the Project—maps al-Banna’s plan. His successors, and author MB spiritual leader Yusuf Qaradawi, Swiss authorities say, order Muslims to engage “economic institutions adequate to support the cause financially” in directives covering roughly 14 pages, headlined “departure points.”

Elsewhere, Qaradawi decrees, “‘holy war’ is an Islamic duty… [F]ighting…is the Way of Allah for which zakat must be spent.” His 1999 “Fiqh az-Zakat” describes the “‘most deserving’ zakat and jihad, to rebuild Islamic society and state and to implement the Islamic way of life in the political, cultural and economic domains.”

Itself now partly owned by bin Talal, the Wall Street Journal in November 2007 ironically noted the tragedy that bad management and “blundering U.S. monetary policy” had again left Citigroup prey to Arab sheiks. Citi got its cash transfusion by granting “only” a 4.9% “minority stake—and no board seats—magically for 0.1% under the 5% necessitating U.S. Federal Reserve Board approval.

The Fed should intervene anyway—given the avid and ongoing, apparent UAE observance of zakat and jihad directives from Muslim Brotherhood leaders like Qaradawi:

The UAE banks wired most of the funds for the 9/11 attacks.

In 2006, UAE donated $100 million to house Palestinian Authority prisoners and suicide bombers’ families, named for the late father of the current UAE president, who over 30 years donated millions to PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror.

Hamas in July 2005, thanked Al-Nahayan’s “sisterly UAE” for its “limitless [financial] support,” and “aid for our Mujahid,” in other words, Hamas jihadist “charitable societies.”

The Palestinian Authority in May 2005 itemized millions of additional UAE U.S.-dollar aid, including $3 million paid directly to the Al Aqsa Intifada Fund.

UAE president Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahayan’s late, terror-financier father also “owned the infamous [global] Bank of Commerce and Credit International” (BCCI)—which bilked depositors of billions before being shuttered in 1991; funded terrorist groups, states and projects like Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Syria, Iran and Pakistani nuclear bomb manufacturing; and was created “to help the world of Islam, and [as] the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists,” as noted by Rachel Ehrenfeld in Evil Money (Harper Collins, 1992, pp. 160, 164-5, 169-70).

In October 2007, Dubai violated World Trade Organization (WTO) rules—banning the Israelis from the Federation of International Freight Forwarders and Customs Clearing Agents world congress. Dubai Ports World and its government holding company prohibit trade with Israel.

In 2003, the UAE established a federal agency specifically to collect zakat on government tax revenues from “companies listed on the Dubai Financial Market and Abu Dhabi Securities Market… oil-producing companies and branches of foreign banks,” obviously including U.S. oil companies and banks. This year alone, the UAE zakat tax agency collected an estimated $13.5 billion.

In what dark corner are U.S. legislators, Fed and securities market regulators asleep?
__________
Alyssa A. Lappen, a Senior Fellow at the American Center for Democracy, is a former Senior Editor of Institutional Investor, Working Woman and Corporate Finance, and a former Associate Editor of Forbes.

Lies of the Nixon Center

Whitewashing the Muslim Brotherhood
by Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPageMagazine | Nov. 15, 2007

On the wall over my desk hangs an amusing trophy from the late, disgraced former President, Richard M. Nixon, whose lies about Watergate ultimately forced him from office. I framed Nixon’s letter–extolling secretive textile magnate Roger Milliken as one of America’s greatest businessmen–beside the May 1989 Forbes piece in which I also reported on the suitcases of cash Milliken gave to both Nixon presidential campaigns.

On October 19, 2006, I encountered a liar rivaling Nixon–ironically then a “senior fellow” at Washington’s Nixon Center. Also then a consultant to ABC News and the U.S. Defense Department (DOD), Alexis Debat appeared at New York University Law School’s Center on Law and Security on an “expert” panel on the Muslim Brotherhood. Debat claimed he was writing “a book on the Muslim Brotherhood,” reportedly with an enormous, indirect DOD grant, through the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) headed by former DOD analyst Andrew Krepinevich.

Masquerading as a Sorbonne Ph.D. and former French Defense Ministry adviser, Debat simultaneously made the most preposterous claims. “Let’s stop hyperventilating about the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said, adding, “I hear the same things in a [British] church as I hear in a mosque”–despite frequent, recurrent incitements emanating from Islamic mosques, centers and schools, including myriad tapes, textbooks, and other media.

“Islam is a source of enlightenment,” Debat said, calling the Muslim Brotherhood “chiefly a ‘political movement, not a party,”–a “liberation” movement, and a “highly pragmatic” prospective “leader in Egypt.”

As was obvious from his foolish remarks, Debat was no Muslim Brotherhood “expert.” Indeed, in September 2002 Agence France Presse had reported, the French Defense Ministry never employed Debat in any capacity–a fact further corroborated by terror expert Jean Charles Brisard, in a Sept. 26, 2007 email. Moreover, Debat never received a Sorbonne Ph.D.

Responding to my Oct. 23, 2006 American Thinker report, Debat falsely complained of “misquotes and distortions,” which I easily refuted. NYU’s Center for Law and Security didn’t publish a recording–which would have been too embarrassing.

Events quickly put the lie to Debat’s nonsense, as my colleague Patrick Poole noted in February 2007. Continue reading “Lies of the Nixon Center” →

Shari’a finance

by Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPage Magazine | Nov. 14, 2007

In October, Abu Dhabi Prince Nahayan Mabarak al-Nahayan advertised his ultra-conservative sheikdom’s openness “in this age of globalization,” and having had world trade “from ancient times” by welcoming 100 world-class Jewish intellectuals to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) second biennial “Festival of Thinkers.” The UAE higher education minister controls 90%-plus of UAE crude and natural gas reserves–and wants good press for planned UAE cultural, science, technology and education institutions.

Also in October, shari’a finance gurus lobbied U.S. bankers at two Islamic finance conferences “to access more Islamic investment opportunities” and create more shari’a compliant products and new Islamic banks. Shari’a is “the path of Allah” explained “scholar” Nizam Yaquby obliquely at first, the Oct. 24 and 25 “Islamic Finance in North America” meeting, thus convincing many U.S. bankers that Islamic economics dates to Muhammad.

However, accepting “shari’a finance” is like swallowing double-edged swords. U.S. politicians, businessmen and regulators should scrutinize–and disclose–the diplomatic and economic weapons that costly oil bestows on erstwhile allies. Muslim clerics consider shari’a–the 7th century Qur’an-based legal code developed by Muslim jurists after Muhammad–one indivisible package, including wife-beating, stoning women, hanging homosexuals, dismembering thieves, supremacist ideology–and funding terror. And shari’a clashes with secular, Constitution-based U.S. laws.

Moreover, Islamic finance is an “invented tradition” empowering Islamic radicals, writes University of Southern California King Faisal Professor of Islamic Thought, Timur Kuran, in Islam and Mammon: “Neither classical nor medieval Islamic civilization featured banks in the modern sense, let alone ‘Islamic banks’.” Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna concocted the idea in the 1920s to unite Muslims in one global Islamic nation (umma).

Finally, Federal Reserve Board officials admit to not understanding shari’a finance. For example, “[W]e are certainly in no position to take a stance on issues of shari’a interpretation,” said New York Federal Reserve executive vice president William Rutledge on April 19, 2005 to the Arab Bankers Association of North America (ABANA).

The Muslim Brotherhood designed dogma and Islamic finance to spread shari’a–seeking ultimate global supremacy over daily life, individual, political and religious freedom. Shari’a mandates that Muslims fund jihad (financial jihad–al Jihad bi-al-Mal). Qur’an 61:10-11, “strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives….” And Qur’an 49:15, “(true) believers are only those who…strive with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah.”

“Financial Jihad [is]…more important…than self-sacrificing,” says Saudi Islamic cleric and Muslim Brother Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi. Muslim Brotherhood spiritual chief Yusuf Qaradawi decrees, “Declaring holy war…is an Islamic duty… [F]ighting…is the Way of Allah for which zakat [charity] must be spent.”

In 2006, UAE donated $100 million to house Palestinian Authority prisoners and families of suicide bombers–and honor UAE president Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahayan, whose late father, over 30 years contributed millions for PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror. On July 27, 2005, Hamas thanked Al-Nahayan’s “sisterly UAE… for its ‘limitless [financial] support’,” and “aid for our Mujahid,” in other words, Hamas jihadist “charitable societies.”

UAE’s Bourse Dubai stock exchange recently requested approval to buy control of NASDAQ, 52% of London’s Stock Exchange (LSE) and 47.6% of OMX (Nordic exchange)–ten months after Bahrain’s Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAIOFI) certified its “Islamic ‘purity’,” designating it the world’s first “shari’a compliant” market.

AAOIFI’s members and shari’a board include Saudi Arabia’s Dallah Al-Baraka Group, al-Rajhi Banking & Investment Corporation and Kuwait Finance House–all implicated in al Qaeda and other terror funding, according to former national counter-terror coordinator Richard Clarke. Other board members are the Islamic Development Bank, also known as the Bank of the Intifada for funding families of suicide bombers, whose principal owners are Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lybia and Egypt, and not one, but two U.S.-sanctioned terror states, Sudan and Iran. Islamic finance experts consider AAOIFI fatwas standards to which all shari’a banks and products, even in the U.S., must adhere. But UAE’s showcase Bourse on Oct. 22, 2007 denied its Islamic “purity” to the Partnership for New York City.

Dubai banned Israel’s delegation from the October Federation of International Freight Forwarders and Customs Clearing Agents world congress. Dubai Ports World and its government holding company prohibit trade with Israel. UAE banks wired most funding for the 9/11 attacks. Saudi Arabia boycotts Israel, despite promising in 2005 to stop, before joining the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Shari’a designates lying “one of the ugliest and most disgusting of sins.” Alas, lying is “permissible”–even encouraged–in innumerable circumstances. Sufi Imam Abu Hamid Mohammed ibn Mohammed al-Ghazzali (1058-1111) instructed followers, if one could achieve a praiseworthy “aim by lying but not by telling the truth, … [it is] obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory,” according to Nuh Ha Mim Keller’s Reliance of the Traveller.

Imposing shari’a–by proselytizing (da’wa) or jihad war–is obligatory.

U.S. banking and investment laws guarantee individual property rights, require full disclosure, and prohibit criminal or terrorist activities. Western bankers and businessmen, however, oblivious to shari’a and financial jihad history, clamor for Muslim petrodollars (supposed surpluses from overextended Middle Eastern exchanges) pouring into U.S. markets.

Former Goldman Sachs trader and Birthright Israel supporter Daniel Och, for example, plans to sell 9.9% of Och-Ziff Capital Management to Dubai International Capital, which on Nov. 6 also acquired Europe’s biggest diagnostic imaging company from Britain’s Bridgepoint private equity fund.

But DIC chief executive Sameer alAnsari sits on the board of Palestine Children Relief Fund, a U.S.-based Palestinian “charity” reportedly tired to the shuttered Holy Land Foundation, Global Relief Foundation, and the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO)–which have all been federally investigated for funding Muslim Brotherhood terror groups al Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

Buyers and sellers, beware.

Alyssa A. Lappen, a former senior editor of Institutional Investor, Working Woman and Corporate Finance, is a senior fellow at the American Center for Democracy. Her website is https://www.alyssaalappen.org.