Does it get any more bizarre than this?
The steady implementation of Islamic sharia law in the United States is a fascinating, complex and deeply disturbing topic of which most Americans are blissfully unaware. This post focuses only on the case of how the American taxpayer has been duped into supporting a system of "laws" that are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.
“a wide-ranging body of law and personal rules, regulating matters of jurisprudence, hygiene, politics, business, banking, family, sexuality, diet, and society. It is meant to serve as the governing principle both within the Muslim world and for Muslims living outside it”.
It is obviously incompatible with Western style democracy. Limited “NO-GO” zones have been implemented in western European countries where sharia law governs every aspect of society including criminal cases, trials and punishments. These areas were established under the threat of terrorism. Needless to say, there are many cases of problems. There has even been an Islamic “Court” established in Texas, the “Heartland of American Conservatism.” 
The largest supplier of Sharia Compliant insurance products is, yes, AIG. With the Federal Governments assumption of 77.9% of AIG, the American Taxpayer, through the evil Troubled Asset Relief Program, has been placed in the curious position of supporting a way of life (Sharia)’ that is demonstrably incompatible with our Constitution, government and way-of-life. Since AIG is not required to account for the TARP money it is entirely possible that some American Taxpayer money has been used to support terrorism and attacks on our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is possible, perhaps even likely, because Sharia requires some funds to be “cleansed”. One way to “cleanse” money is to funnel it to organizations engaged in jihad. Sharia also requires a “tax” of up to 20%. This tax is also used for, among other things, the support of Jihad.
Fortunately, but maybe a matter of too-little-too-late, a lawsuit has been filed challenging this unholy alliance. The lawsuit, Murray v. Geithner et al., was brought against the Federal Reserve and the Treasury by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Kevin Murray, a former Marine who served honorably in Iraq to defend the United States from Islamic terrorists. President Obama’s Justice Department sought to have the lawsuit dismissed on the technical grounds that the plaintiff did not have standing. Again, fortunately, the government (our government, isn’t this bizarre?) motion was not granted. In denying the government’s motion, Judge Zatkoff wrote;
Pursuant to the EESA, the government has injected AIG with tens of billions of dollars, without restricting or tracking how this considerable sum of money is spent. At least two of AIG’s subsidiary companies practice Sharia-compliant financing, one of which was unveiled after the influx of government cash. After using the $40 billion from the government to pay down the $85 billion credit facility, the credit facility retained $60 billion in available credit, suggesting that AIG did not use all $40 billion consistent with its press release. Finally, after the government acquired a majority interest in AIG and contributed substantial funds to AIG for operational purposes, the government co-sponsored a forum entitled “Islamic Finance 101.” These facts, taken together, raise a question of whether the government’s involvement with AIG has created the effect of promoting religion and sufficiently raise Plaintiff’s claim beyond the speculative level, warranting dismissal inappropriate at this stage in the proceedings.
Congresspersons Frank Wolf and Sue Myrick have also taken AIG to task over this topic:
".. your touting of Shariah finance is much like your marketing and promotion of subprime loans. Many in the financial industry believed subprime loans were a great way to make money and would cause no harm. Do not make the same mistake by supporting shariah finance, because, as we have stated, there are far more dire consequences."
"You may defend your decision to offer Shariah products and will probably state that they have no real ties to Shariah Law, and therefore, pose no threat. You are wrong. "
- Letter from Congresspersons Frank Wolf and Sue Myrick to AIG CEO Edward Liddy, December 8,2008
Even individuals adamantly opposed to getting involved with anything political should follow this topic because it has the potential to affect our lives in ways we have never dreamed.
CASE UPDATE (June 1, 2012): The Sixth Circuit rules that Murray lacks standing to challenge the federal government's use of taxpayer funds to support sharia. Read the opinion here. Read more about opinion here.
CASE UPDATE (June 15, 2012): AFLC files petition for review asking the full court of the Sixth Circuit to review the decision rendered by a three-judge panel. Read petition here.
CASE UPDATE (July 12, 2012): The Sixth Circuit denied our petition for full court review of the decision rendered by a three-judge panel which held that a federal taxpayer lacked "standing" to challenge the constitutionality of the federal government's use of taxpayer funds to support sharia. We are now working to take this case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
CASE UPDATE: (October 10, 2012): AFLC filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, asking the Court to review the appellate court decision which held that a federal taxpayer lacked “standing” to challenge the constitutionality of the federal government’s use of taxpayer funds to support sharia. You can read the petitition here.
 The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas, Ft Worth, has granted a ruling to The Texas Islamic Court to enforce rulings. This means the State of Texas is obligated to enforce decisions made by Islamic clerics or advisors.