Continued from page 1....

"What they're trying to do is fake cases for Islam and these cases are done purposefully. We take an imam, there are two of them. They were fighting against each other and the fight was over a mosque," Saleem said. "That is so devious and it is part of the culture of Islamic invasion. These two imams are fighting over a mosque in Florida. Each imam says it belongs to me.

"One says I built it and I raised the funds. The other one says the Wahhabi government put me over here and they're the ones who sent the money. Both of them are right," Saleem continued.

"They went to the Supreme Court in Florida. What happened is that they said this was a Muslim matter and you need to judge us by Islamic Shariah law or you will not understand how these things work," he said.

Gill said there are other recent cases that demonstrate the level to which Shariah has infiltrated the court system.

"There are different types of cases in which you see that Shariah or Islamic law is applied or is required to be applied, or looked at," Gill said.

"For example, indirectly, there are cases in which foreign judgments are brought into the United States and enforced here," he said.

One such case according to the ACLJ's booklet is the case of 'Farah v. Farah,' heard in Virginia.

In that case, a Virginia trial judge recognized the validity of a Muslim marriage that was conducted through a proxy in England."

"The trial judge ruled that the marriage, which was solemnized in England (though no certificate of marriage was issued by any English authority) and its ceremony completed in Pakistan, must be honored in Virginia because 'the law of the state of Pakistan sanctions marriages performed under the personal law of the parties which in this case was Moslem law,'" the ACLJ book reported.

The book pointed out that the Virginia court, "correctly recognized, however, that Pakistan's recognition of Shariah 'does not control the issue of the validity of the marriage under Virginia law.' Instead, the court applied Virginia law, which only granted comity according to the principles of the location celebrating the marriage, which was England."

There is also the California case of "Malak v. Malak," which involved a Lebanese court decision.

"The court determined, however, that the Lebanese order was enforceable because even though the Lebanese court had not explicitly applied the 'best interests of the child' standard, its decision aligned with California's 'best interests of the child' standard," the ACLJ book said.

An Emory University Law School publication noted that the "Malak" case was cited as precedent in other Muslim child custody cases.

Atlas Shrugs publisher and Islam analyst Pamela Geller says that Islamic law cited as the basis for any American court decision shows that the American legal system is turning a dangerous corner.

"It is setting a very dangerous precedent. Shariah law and U.S. law conflict in numerous ways, including on issues of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for women. Allowing Shariah to be a determining factor in U.S. courtrooms threatens those rights for all of us," Geller said.

.