US Urges Judge to Bar Geithner Deposition in AIG Sharia Lawsuit

Coincidentally, the judge is an Arab American Muslim. Backstories on the AIG – sharia lawsuit here.

From ABC News via the AP, who seem to be almost defending AIG and Islam in this article – US Urges Judge to Bar Geithner Role in AIG Lawsuit:

The federal government is opposing a Michigan man’s request to take the deposition of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in a lawsuit that challenges the bailout of American International Group Inc.

A lawsuit was filed in 2008 on religious grounds, claiming the government should not have bailed out AIG because the insurance giant sold financial products specifically tailored to Islamic principles.

It’s tailored alright. Tailored to comply with Islamic sharia law.

The plaintiff, Kevin Murray of Ypsilanti, is being represented by an Ann Arbor firm that takes cases on behalf of Christian causes.

Nevermind that this is a Constitutional issue.

In a court filing last week, government attorneys called the deposition a “fishing expedition,” and said there are no extraordinary circumstances that would require Murray’s lawyers to interview Geithner for three hours.

“High-level government officials would be paralyzed from carrying out their extensive duties if they were subject to deposition in every civil action against their agency,” the Justice Department said.

The government said there are limits to unwinding the decision-making process of the executive branch.

“Secretary Geithner is uniquely situated to testify as to the mechanics and rationale of the government’s bailout of AIG, including decisions related to the expenditure of federal funds,” wrote the plaintiff’s lawyer, David Yerushalmi.

The lawsuit says AIG sells Takaful insurance, which is based on communal assistance that has been accepted by some Islamist religious officials.

Again, AP tries to minimize sharia-compliance and who determines compliance. More below.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Mona Majzoub is scheduled to hear arguments Feb. 8.

AP felt the need to mention the law firm takes on Christian causes, but not to mention the judge is an Arab Muslim.

In May, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff denied a request to dismiss the lawsuit at an early stage, saying the case raises questions about whether the government is promoting religion.

Other details conveniently left out of the Associated (w/t) Press article:

In his ruling, the judge [Zatkoff] held that the lawsuit sufficiently alleged a federal constitutional challenge to the use of taxpayer money to fund AIG’s Islamic religious activities.

AIG itself describes “Sharia” as “Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet [Mohammed].”

With the aid of taxpayer funds provided by Congress, AIG employs a “Shariah Supervisory Committee,” which is comprised of the following members: Sheikh Nizam Yaquby from Bahrain, Dr. Mohammed Ali Elgari from Saudi Arabia, and Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani from Pakistan.  Dr. Usmani is the son, student, and dedicated disciple of Mufti Taqi Usmani, who is the leading Shariah authority for Shariah-compliant finance in the world and the author of a book translated into English in 1999 that includes an entire chapter dedicated to explaining why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country or government.  According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority “is to review our operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and our investments.”

An important element of Shariah-compliant financing is a form of obligatory charitable contribution called zakat, which is a religious tax for assisting those that “struggle [jihad] for Allah.”

Update: Federal court rules: There will be no interlocutory appeal and Plaintiff’s discovery into the government’s fraudulent takeover of AIG will continue

February 2, 2009 – Port Huron, Michigan: Federal district court judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff rejected today the Treasury Department’s and the Fed’s effort to prevent any further discovery while the government attempts to convince the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule Judge Zatkoff’s earlier ruling rejecting the government’s motion to dismiss the federal lawsuit challenging the government’s takeover of AIG on First Amendment-Establishment Clause grounds.

In what is an extremely well-written opinion, Judge Zatkoff scolded the government lawyers for filing the wrong motion at the wrong time and then proceeded to tell them they would have lost in any event because his earlier denial of their motion to dismiss was proper and well-considered.

11 thoughts on “US Urges Judge to Bar Geithner Deposition in AIG Sharia Lawsuit

  1. This is another example of why it is time to retake our country & dispatch those treasonous fools from the gov’t. permanently!! The list is long, but a cleanup op can fix the problems & return our country to it’s founding principals – still 100% valid today as when they were first implemented. The imment collapse will force the issue & require patriots to action – be prepared!!!

  2. They forgot to do their homework again, the media is so unreliable with the whole story. It would be worth mentioning that Harvard has a Dept. teaching Islamic Sharia Law and banking in the USA. They, Harvard is also teaching a Govt. Agency how to comply with Shariah Law in dealing with money. So Who would that BE?
    I read about that over a year ago!

  3. Individual Muslims are required to pay zakat. AIG is neither an individual, nor a Muslim, and has no obligation to pay Zakat. Islamic organizations generally DO NOT pay zakat. Shareholders MIGHT, but the organizations do not. A Shariah scholar may be able to veto a charitable contribution (if asked), but does not dictate where the money should go, that is the individual’s choice. The Boy Scouts, the Salvation Arm, the United Way, the Southern Poverty Law Center & the ACLU would all be acceptable zakat recipients.

  4. BHO…

    Individual Muslims are also required to support jihad against unbelievers unless physically or mentally unable. Then they are required to support those who can physically wage jihad.

    AIG is operating according to Islamic sharia laws and where their charitable donations go, if at all, is just one of many concerns regarding a U.S. government owned and operated, tax-payer funded, company.

    Besides your hypothetical and glaringly absurd choices of supposed zakat recipients (SPLC & ACLU are known pro-Islam, anti-American organizations) – if true, clearly indicate that CAIR, Obama (your BHO namesake) and other Muslim groups are lying when they say the US makes it impossible for Muslims to meet the zakat obligation. Since, as you note, there are plenty of well-established organizations to donate too. Sadly for you, the ACLU does not agree with your taqiyya.

  5. Your obfuscation and attempts to deceive readers is glaringly absurd.

    You wrote that “individual” Muslims can donate to the United Way and claim the donations as zakat, not AIG. So to then suggest the opposite is equally absurd.

    And of course if you go to Muslim Brotherhood sites like CAIR’s – they clearly identify themselves as being zakat-eligible.

    Don’t confuse charitable giving in the Western sense with the Islamic obligation of zakat. They are quite distinct which is why Muslims want their own specially designated “charitable” organizations specifically for zakat…even though many of them fund Islamic terrorism.

  6. Excuse me? Obfuscate? You are the one who switched from individuals donations to AIG’s– see the second paragraph of your post “AIG is operating according to Islamic sharia laws and where their charitable donations go…” You highlight in your article “obligatory charitable contribution called zakat” which I point out is NOT obligatory for AIG, and even if it were to VOLUNTARILY make a contribution, it could just as easily be to the Boy Scouts as to Hamas.

    Just because CAIR may be zakat eligible, does not mean that the Red Cross is not, and if I were AIG and accountable to shareholders, and had to chose between the two, I would pick the Red Cross and avoid the controversy.

    You are quick to note that the Ann Arbor firm described as representing “Christian causes” is making a Constitutional stance, while calling the ACLU, which is devoted to upholding Constiutitonal principles “anti-American”? If you look at what causes the ACLU has defended, you will see something to offend EVERYONE (of every religious and political preference), but they defend, based on Constiuttional principles, what people find to be unpleasant, because no one tries to ban the pleasant stuff.

    I don’t think you understand what zakat really means, and I know that David Yerushalmi doesn’t. “Struggling for God” does not require spending of limited resources to kill infidels, it can also mean supporting those in need– as in food, shelter, clothing.

    While besmerching the son (Dr. Imran Usmani) for the sins of the father (Justice Taqi Usmani) in advocating “violent jihad against his own country or government” I notice, to use your language, that you also conveniently left out that the U.S.’s own Founding Fathers advocated the same violent struggle, at least one advocated that it be done frequently, and THEY ACTUALLY DID, as good Christians all, overthrow a sovereign (Christian) government:

    “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms…. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
    Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787

    If you want to be hateful of Muslims (one out of every five people on the planet, an awful lot of people to hate), that is your prerogative (and the ACLU would even defend that right!), just do it honestly.

    I am done here.

  7. Promises, promises. We can only hope you are done after intentionally hijacking and distorting the words of Jefferson to equate them with the completely separate ideology of Islamic jihad. Yet we know jihad is the fight to establish Islam, as opposed to Jefferson’s concept of Liberty for all, including Muslims.

    Worse than obfuscate the issue of sharia, you attribute your own opinion as to what you’d like us to write, a tactic which we’ll ignore.

    Individuals pay Zakât (including corporations). ~ The Zakat Foundation of America

    No where does it say that AIG has any obligation to pay zakat – but that is how you have derailed the entire subject of the AIG lawsuit, the merits of which have been approved by the courts and the case is moving forward.

    We’ll let the courts decide the fate of the case, and continue warning about the many aspects of Islamic sharia law that are incompatible with liberty and the United States Constitution.

    Since you are done, and we understand that to mean you are not coming back, we’ll leave you with more of Jefferson’s writing:

    In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the “Dey of Algiers” ambassador to Britain.

    The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote to appease.

    During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey’s ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

    In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

  8. Pingback: Michigan: 2 more Muslim women arrested, subjected daughters to genital mutilation |

If sharia law continues spreading, you'll have less and less freedom of speech - so speak while you can!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.