Watch This Case! FGM Is a Test Case for Sharia in the USA

2

The Michigan lawyer for the FGM mutilation doctor says physicians accused of FGM are “Muslims and they’re being under attack because of it.”

Dr. Fakhruddin Attar

Mary Chartier is the Michigan attorney for Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, the FGM doctor who has been mutiliating little girls as young as six in accordance with sharia law. It’s against U.S. law, but if the attorney wins this case, it will set precedent for sharia as allowable under the guise of freedom of religion.

The attorney is attempting to make it a case of Islamophobia. “I do believe that the government does not fully understand the religious practices of Dr. Attar and Dr. Attar’s religion, and I think that’s why we are in this courthouse today, and what we’ll be fighting over for the next few months.”

That is unquestionably the truth. Americans don’t understand that sharia is a way of life – political, social, legal and so on. It’s not simply a religion.

The lawyer intends to define sharia as religion. Unfortunately, that’s what people don’t understand. Sharia is not religion as we know it.

The is a test case for sharia practice in the USA.

“They have a religious belief to practice their religion. And they are Muslims and they’re being under attack because of it. I believe that they are being persecuted because of their religious beliefs and I do not make that allegation lightly,” Chartier said.

The religion isn’t under attack. The barbaric practice of sexual mutilation on girls is under fire.

“Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) (by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the bazr ‘clitoris’ [this is called khufaadh ‘female circumcision’]).” — ‘Umdat al-Salik e4.3, translated by Mark Durie, The Third Choice, p. 64

If that’s the case then they must go back to the counties that continue to live as if ti were the 7th century.

Judicial Watch reported: A Muslim cleric in Russia said that “all women should be circumcised.” A Muslim cleric in India likewise urged that it be done. A Muslim cleric in Australia said that Islamic law permitted the practice. A leading U.S. Muslim jurist from the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) said it was an “honor” in Islam. A marabout — a Muslim holy man — was arrested in France for having it done on his daughters. In the UK, there were 5,500 cases of FGM in 2016 alone. It is commonly claimed to be an East African problem, but 93% of Muslim women in Malaysia have suffered this procedure, and it is common in Indonesia. In one province in Iran, 60% of the women have suffered FGM.

Will we do the same?

The indictment against FGM includes the following:

  • The three defendants had conspired to perform the procedure on girls under 18 years of age since 2005.
  • Attar allowed Nagarwala to perform the procedure at his clinic after it was closed for the day. He was present at the clinic during the procedure, while his wife, Farida, assisted Nagarwala in the examination room.
  • Attar and Nagarwala agreed to make false statements to law enforcement regarding whether the procedure took place.
  • The three defendants told others not to speak about the procedure and to lie to federal investigators about the procedure.
  • Attar and Nagarwala took steps to delete evidence.
  • Nagarwala told investigators she had never been present or had knowledge that this procedure was being performed on children.
  • Attar told investigators this procedure had not taken place at his clinic.

The attorney says the “procedure” is “religious practice”.

One would think this is a slam dunk for the prosecution but this is a state with a lot of Obama judges.

“They have a religious belief to practice their religion. And they are Muslims and they’re being under attack because of it. I believe that they are being persecuted because of their religious beliefs and I do not make that allegation lightly,” Chartier said.

The PC culture could find for the accused.

There is a Supreme Court decision that should preclude this. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment. Reynolds was the first Supreme Court opinion to address the Impartial Jury and the Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment.

The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action.

Read the entire story at Judicial Watch.

2 COMMENTS

Comments are closed.