A U.S. Marine who served in Iraq is suing the federal government for distributing billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to the Shariah-supporting American International Group.
The lawsuit, Murray v. Geithner et al., was brought against the Fed 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.
Murray argues that he is being forced as a taxpayer to contribute to the propagation of Islamic beliefs and practices predicated upon Shariah law, which he says is hostile to his Christian religion.
He is represented by Thomas More attorney Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi, an associated attorney who is an expert in Shariah law and Shariah-compliant financing, as well as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy. They filed the initial complaint in December 2008.
On June 7, Murray’s attorneys filed a motion
for summary judgment asking federal District Court Judge Lawrence
Zatkoff to rule against Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
and the Federal Reserve Board.
The Thomas More Law Center explained the motion for summary judgment is based on depositions of Treasury officials, court-sealed affidavits of AIG officials and sworn declarations of two notable experts on Islamic law and terrorism: Stephen C. Coughlin and Robert Spencer.
Coughlin, a lawyer and decorated Army Reserve officer, is a leading Pentagon expert on the link between Islamic law and jihad. He explained that by engaging in Shariah-compliant financing, AIG and the federal government – which owns 79.9 percent of AIG – are engaging in the religious practice of Islam.
Islam teaches hostility and discrimination against Jews, Christians and anyone who doesn’t accept the Quran as the “word of Allah,” he said, explaining that the indoctrination stems from the same law that motivated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans.
As WND reported, Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, has studied Islamic theology and history for 30 years. He is author of “Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs,””The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades” and eight other books dealing with Islam. He has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the U.S. Central Command, the U.S. Command and General Staff College, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the U.S. intelligence community.
Spencer explained that by offering Shariah-compliant financing, AIG is promoting religious behavior that teaches hatred and discrimination against Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims.
The motion states, “[T]he use of taxpayer money to approve, endorse and support Shariah-based Islamic religious activities and religious indoctrination, including the use of such funds to acquire government ownership and control that engages in such activities, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
At the time of the 2008 bailout, AIG was – and remains today – a world leader in Shariah-compliant insurance products.
As WND reported, AIG, which is now a government-owned company, owns a Shariah-compliant insurance company, offering accident, health, motor, personal contents, property and casualty insurance coverage. Shariah-compliant financing subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion.
“AIG’s SCF [Shariah-Compliant Finance] business is pervasively sectarian in that its ‘secular’ business purposes and its Islamic religious missions are inextricably intertwined,” the complaint states.
The motion notes that AIG describes “Sharia” as “Islamic law based on Quran and the teachings of the Prophet.”
“Specifically, the Quran is considered by the majority but not all of Islamic adherents to be the perfect expression of Allah’s will for man,” it states. “Presumably, most non-Muslims, and this is certainly true of plaintiff, don’t accept the Quran as divine or as an expression – perfect or otherwise – of Allah or any divinity.”
It adds, “AIG, and by clear extension and implication defendants on behalf of the government, are taking a particular theological position by supporting a specific interpretation of Shariah-based Islam.”
Beyond financial support through funding of AIG, the complaint accuses the government of promoting and endorsing Shariah-Compliant Finance through publications on the Treasury website, an official position at the Treasury Department of the “Islamic Finance Scholar-in-Residence Program” and presentations by Treasury officials promoting Shariah-Compliant Finance and stating that the U.S. government “places significant importance on promoting … Islamic finance” and has “recently deepened our engagement in Islamic finance in a number of ways,” including a “call for harmonization of Shari’a[sic] standards at the national and international levels.”
Then, as WND reported in December 2008, the Treasury Department sponsored and promoted a conference titled “Islamic Finance 101.”
“What makes this case all the more egregious is that this doctrine – Shariah – also happens to be the underlying legal and military doctrine animating jihad against the West by Muslims from the Middle East, Asia, Russia, Africa, and even right here at home,” Yerushalmi said in a press release. “Each and every one of the domestic and foreign jihad terrorists have proclaimed their allegiance to Shariah and its call for ‘jihad against apostates and infidels.'”
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, said, “It’s outrageous that the federal government is the owner of a corporation engaged in a business with interests adverse to the United States. We filed this lawsuit not only to defend constitutional principles, but also to defend our national security. It’s clear we can’t leave the job of protecting America to the Washington politicians.”
In an earlier decision, Judge Zatkoff denied a request by the Obama administration to dismiss the lawsuit.
In his ruling, the judge declared that the complaint sufficiently alleged a federal constitutional challenge to the use of taxpayer money to fund AIG’s Islamic religious activities. The court noted:
Times of crisis, however, do not justify departure from the Constitution. In this case, the United States government has a majority interest in AIG. AIG utilizes consolidated financing whereby all funds flow through a single port to support all of its activities, including Sharia-compliant financing. 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.
Yerushalmi stated, “It is one thing that our government felt compelled to bail out AIG after its fortunes were destroyed due to the company’s own recklessness and bad acts. It is quite another thing to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote and support AIG’s Shariah businesses – all of which don’t just sell Shariah products to the Muslim world, but actively promote Shariah as the best, most ethical way of life.”
He added, “Indeed, the Shariah authorities relied upon by AIG’s Shariah Supervisory Committees actively promote jihad – and by jihad we mean kinetic war against the infidel West.”