Dismissal of charges against Muslim assaulting atheist proves need for anti-sharia laws


by Jack Minor —

The recent decision by Pennsylvania Judge Mark Martin to throw out assault charges against a Muslim man who assaulted an atheist who insulted his faith reveals the need for anti-sharia laws, a pro-national defense activist says.

American Atheists Pennsylvania State Director, Ernest Perce was attacked by a Muslim while dressed as a zombie Muhammad in a Halloween parade. During the same parade another atheist was dressed as a zombie Pope, but there were no reports of a Roman Catholic attacking anyone.

During the hearing, the judge dressed down the victim who was assaulted rather than the assailant saying he should be grateful he did not live in an Islamic country where he could face the death penalty for daring to insult Islam.

The judge, who is an admitted Muslim, dismissed the charges against the Muslim who attacked Martin saying, “There’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – I understand you’re an atheist – but see Islam is not just a religion. It’s their culture, their culture, their very essence, their very being.”

He continued, “Whenever it is very common, their language, when they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, Allah willing, this will happen. It’s, they’re so immersed in it. And what you’ve done is, you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim. I find it offensive.”

Martin then dismissed the charges despite testimony from a police officer regarding the assault saying, “Because there was not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore, I am going to dismiss the charge.”

Brigitte Gabriel, founder and president of ACT! for America, and author of “They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam How We Can Do It”, said while the Pennsylvania case has caused an uproar across the country it is far from unique.

“Actually [there are] 51 cases in American court rooms where Islamic law was considered above the Constitution of the United States, Gabriel says, “Especially in domestic law and in family law. And that’s simply unacceptable.”

While an anti-sharia law in Oklahoma was declared unconstitutional, Gabriel says her organization is spearheading a petition urging states to pass legislation called American Laws for American Courts.

Gabriel says unlike the Oklahoma law, this does not single out sharia law “even though sharia law does come under the general law that we are introducing. And this is why, in the states where we passed it already — Tennessee, Arizona and Louisiana — those laws have not been challenged because the Islamic lobby knows that the law we are introducing is so bulletproof they cannot fight it.”

Islamic groups have vigorously protested any anti-sharia type legislation including in some states where the legislation simply said judges cannot use foreign law as a basis for their decisions.

Islamic groups claim that, by permitting judges from using shari,a they will be unable to execute their wills according to Islamic law, however, there had been cases of judges using sharia law to go far beyond the mere execution of a will.

In 2010 a New Jersey judge refused to grant a woman a restraining order to a woman sexually abused by her husband stating he was simply acting according to his Muslim beliefs. The decision was eventually overturned.

This entry was posted in General News and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Dismissal of charges against Muslim assaulting atheist proves need for anti-sharia laws

  1. atheist says:

    You’re words are right on the point, but unfortunately being published in an online blog like this, with some BS ads like president’s obama’s birth certificate is forged attacks the credibility of your article. For once I want to see the republicans walking away from this “Gun Ho”, birthers (whatever that is), and staying focused on the point of attacking the greater danger not making themselves the embodiment of that danger. A radical christian is no different than a radical muslim..they both do not accept the U.S. law as their law. The cases you arise are completely true and right yet you discredit it by your other stances on everything else. A christian taliban fighting a muslim taliban is at the end of the day..a taliban.

  2. American Guy says:

    Ironically, the case had NOTHING to do with Sharia law. It was about a judge who decided that culture/cultural traditions (not Islamic law) trumps U.S. criminal law. The judge could have decided that Muslims are too cute to be held accountable for assault — that would have nothing to do with Sharia law either.

  3. Christian says:

    Grounds for appeal when the judge stated “I’m a Muslim. I find it offensive.”

    This was an assault, plain and simple.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *